Preamble

The House met at half-past

Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. MICHAEL DINGAKE

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what replies he has received from the South African Government to his representations about Mr. Michael Dingake's illegal abduction from Rhodesia; and what further action he proposes to take in the matter.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mrs. Eirene White): In answer to our representations, the South African authorities replied last week that they could not accede to our request for Mr. Dingake's release for deportation to Bechuanaland. Further represenations are being considered.

Mr. Steel: Will the Minister of State undertake to press the matter most strongly through our ambassador in South Africa, and will she make clear the displeasure of Members on both sides in this matter?

Mrs. White: We will, of course, do everything we can. We have let the South African Government know our feelings in the matter but, as I have explained in answer to earlier Questions, there are certain legal difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. GERALD BROOKE

Mr. Winnick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further steps are being undertaken to try to ease the prison conditions of Mr. Gerald Brooke.

Mrs. White: The Soviet Government have not yet replied to the representations which the embassy in Moscow made on 27th June, but we are continuing to pursue this matter with them.

Mr. Winnick: Could the Russians be told in quite ordinary, simple language of the deep concern felt in this country at the way this person is being treated? Could they also be told that it is this sort of behaviour, either by them or, on certain occasions by us, that harms Anglo-Soviet friendship?

Mrs. White: After the declarations of public feeling in this country, I cannot believe that the Russians can be in any doubt at all as to our opinion in this matter.

Sir R. Cary: This is not a normal prison sentence, but one that is being exercised with an extreme degree of harshness. Just how cynical can a great


country become, to be host of the British Prime Minister and, at the same time, allow this kind of thing to go on in the background?

Mrs. White: We have, of course, made clear to the Russian authorities that we consider this sentence to be extremely harsh; and also that we are not satisfied with some of the conditions this person is sustaining at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — VIETNAM

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary to Vietnam.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given by my hon. Friend to a Question by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) on 7th July. and my own reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) on 11th July.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his noble Friend forecast the ending of the Vietnam war, with the Americans winning it within 12 months. In view of President Ho Chi Minh's mobilisation statement at the weekend, can the right hon. Gentleman say that this still represents the view of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Stewart: What my noble Friend said was that although this could conceivably happen within the next 12 months, he doubted whether it would in fact happen.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what agreement he has reached with the United States of America and local authorities in Vietnam about the sending of the British Medical Mision to treat children burned by napalm or mutilated by splinter bombs; how many such children are being brought to this country; and what proportion the number of children so treated is to the total weekly child casualties in South Vietnam.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. George Thomson): I would refer my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reply to a Question on the 7th July by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr).

Mr. Zilliacus: In view of the extended bombing that is now going on, would not my right hon. Friend suggest to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he should make representations to Washington about the advisability of ceasing to mutilate and burn children wholesale?

Mr. Thomson: I think everyone abhors the cruelties which are involved in this war. The Prime Minister is taking most practicable steps to make a British contribution to ending it at this very moment in Moscow. As to deliberate bombing of civilians, including children, that is taking place only on the part of the Vietcong.

Mr. Raphael Tuck: Are Her Majesty's Government protesting to the United States about the use of napalm, and if not. why not?

Mr. Thomson: The Government's attitude on these matters is well known. We believe that the right way to end the cruelties associated with this war on both sides is to end the war itself.

Mr. Luard: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government that a final settlement in South Vietnam shall provide for the withdrawal of all foreign troops and the dissociation of that country from military alliances.

Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer my hon. Friend to my remarks in the debate on Vietnam on 7th July, when I summarised once more the sort of solution which we envisage for Vietnam.

Mr. Luard: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the readiness of the North Vietnam Government and the Vietcong to negotiate on this subject is likely to be dependent on what they believe the ultimate objective of the United States Government to be? It is, therefore, very important that the 14 points which the United States Government put forward some months ago should be reaffirmed by them and that the British Government


should use all their influence to bring this about.

Mr. Stewart: The United States Government made it very plain then that they want no United States bases or United States troops in South-East Asia. I think this must be clear by now to the Government of Hanoi. It has been stated several times by the United States, and we ourselves most recently in the debate on 7th July set forward our views on this. I do not think there can be any doubt about it.

Mr. Freeson: Will my right hon. Friend seek to bring pressure to bear on the United States Government to make the position on this point clear now and not rely upon statements which were given months ago, in view of the considerable number of reports which are appearing here and abroad that it is the intention of the United States Government to establish a policy of military containment and retain bases in South Vietnam?

Mr. Stewart: Those reports are contrary to all statements of policy for a long time past by the United States Government.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what advice the Advisory Police Mission in Vietnam has given to the Government of South Vietnam concerning the pay of the police force; (2) what advice the Advisory Police Mission in Vietnam has given the authorities on measures for dealing with crimes arising from prostitution in Siagon.

Mr. George Thomson: None, Sir. The Mission advises the Vietnamese Government on the organisation and training of civilian police and its main duties are as outlined by my right hon. Friend in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend on 31st January, 1966.

Mr. Hughes: Can my hon. Friend give some idea of what this police force that we are paying to advise is like? Is he aware of a statement made in The Times on 6th July that an inspector of police had to resort to illegal taxi-driving in order to get a decent wage to feed his children? On the question of prostitution, as this evil has become so great in Siagon, does he not think that it is time that Her Majesty's

Government made some representations to the American Government about it?

Mr. Thomson: I have studied the article in The Times to which my hon. Friend refers. The conditions that it describes are, of course, the result of fighting a cruel war, and the way to deal with them is to end the war itself, which is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is seeking to make his contribution to in Moscow at the moment. I would also add that the article in The Times mentions the crying need in South Vietnam for, above all, security and the rule of law. Our advisory police mission is seeking to make a modest contribution to these civilised ends.

Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has now received on the accuracy of the bombing of fuel installations in North Vietnam and on the civilian casualties resulting from it.

Mr. M. Stewart: Reports received suggest that the bombing of oil installations in North Vietnam has been carried out with great accuracy and with few civilian casualties.

Mr. Campbell: In that event, should not the Government have waited for a short time until the facts were all known before issuing a statement of condemnation of the American action?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. I gave the reasons to the House, in the debate on 7th July, as to why we thought it right to make the statement we did. The possibility, which is always there when there is bombing so near to civilian areas, of injury to innocent civilians was one reason but only one reason that I gave in my statement.

Mr. Will Griffiths: May I ask my right hon. Friend, as I asked him in last week's debate, what is the source of this information? Is it coming from the American Embassy or from our own diplomatic representatives in South Vietnam?

Mr. Stewart: There are reports available and my hon. Friend will have noted that I said in my reply that the reports received "suggest" this. I can answer this question only on the basis of such reports as we have received. They come partly from what is said by the United States, partly from what is said by the North Vietnamese and partly from such information as our Consul-General in Hanoi is able to obtain. It is not possible for independent observers to visit the places, and I have therefore had to answer the question on the basis of such information as is available to us.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Was not the real reason for the Prime Minister's statement fear of hon. Members below the Gangway?

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Member is entitled to take that view if he pleases. I do not think that it carries much conviction.

Mr. Winnick: Has my right hon. Friend seen the various statements by American Senators that the whole of North Vietnam should be bombed out of existence? Have the Americans gone completely crazy in waging their dirty colonial war in Vietnam?

Mr. Stewart: I repeat that these remarks about the horror of the war carry conviction only if they relate to cruelties resulting from action on both sides.

Mr. Marten: Was not the original decision by the Government to dissociate themselves from the bombing taken in relation to centres of population? Yet was not the bombing of the fuel storage tanks two or three miles outside the centres of population?

Mr. Stewart: That point was specifically dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he answered Questions. One must ask oneself whether one considers two miles to be sufficient distance to have made it wrong to issue a statement. What distance would the hon. Member tolerate?

Mr. Orme: Could my right hon. Friend go a little further in giving the sources of his information about these attacks? I was an air bomber/navigator

in the last war and I know that, even with modern weapons, it is not possible to bomb with the accuracy that the Americans claim and that civilians must suffer when an area such as this is bombed.

Mr. Stewart: I have already given the sources of information and have made it clear that I can only give the House such reports as we have received, for it is not possible for independent observers to go there. The sources are the North Vietnamese, the United States and our Consul-General in Hanoi.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.S.R. (JEWS)

Sir J. Foster: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations he has made to the Russian Government protesting against the persecution of Jews in Soviet Russia.

Mrs. White: None, Sir. We have made clear at the United Nations our opposition to all forms of racialism, including anti-Semitism. The Soviet Government are aware of our views.

Sir John Foster: Would the Foreign Secretary make representations, as all the Jewish schools in Russia have been closed, and most of the synagogues? Would he also consider making representations to achieve the reunification of Jewish families which have been separated by the war—separated either Russia-Israel or Russia-other Communist countries? This is a very vital matter.

Mrs. White: We have every sympathy with the point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he is himself a distinguished international lawyer and will appreciate that while there are many opinions in these matters, it is a difficult thing to make official bilateral representations to another country on behalf of people in whom we cannot claim a direct interest.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Is there not a well-documented list of persecutions against the Jews in Russia, and does not this quite clearly offend against every canon of human rights? That being so, is it not the duty of Her Majesty's Government, despite all the conventions, to make representations?

Mrs. White: No, Sir. The opinion of Her Majesty's Government is that it is proper to raise the matter internationally, as we have done at the United Nations, but that it is not proper to make direct bilateral representations on such a thing.

Oral Answers to Questions — RACIAL DISCRIMINATION (UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION)

Mr. Archer: asked the Secretary of State For Foreign Affairs whether he has completed his study into the advisability of ratification by the United Kingdom Government of the United Nations Convention on Racial Discrimination, as indicated to the House on 28th February, 1966; and what conclusion he has reached.

Mrs. White: No, Sir, not yet. As I informed the House on 17th June I hope to be in a position to announce a decision later in the year.

Mr. Archer: In view of the fact that the Convention is intended to represent the standards accepted by all civilised people, may I ask my hon. Friend to describe in a little more detail some of the difficulties which are peculiar to this country?

Mrs. White: One of the difficulties is that the United Kingdom has to ensure that the conditions not only in the metropolitan territory but also in the overseas territory are broadly in line with the instrument before it can be ratified. No State has yet ratified the Convention.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH ARABIAN FEDERATION

Viscount Lambton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the provisions of the 1959 and 1964 Treaties with the Federation of South Arabia.

Sir J. Eden: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to uphold the 1959 and 1964 Treaties with the Federation of South Arabia.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for what reasons Her Majesty's Government abrogated unilaterally the Treaty of Friendship and Protection, Command Paper No. 665, made with the South Arabian Federation, which under Article IX cannot be amended except by mutual consent of the contracting parties.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Walter Padley): Her Majesty's Government have not abrogated unilaterally the Treaty of 1959. It remains in force as amended by two further Treaties concluded with the Federation of South Arabia on 13th January, 1963 (Cmnd. 2451) and 12th August, 1965 (Cmnd. 2976).
As regards Her Majesty's Government's policy towards these Treaties, I would refer the questioners to the reply which my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) on 1st July.

Viscount Lambton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Will he give a straight answer to a question which was asked previously in debate, whether or not the Treaty of 1959 can be amended except by mutual consent of both parties?

Mr. Padley: When South Arabia becomes independent the treaties will be terminated since their terms are incompatible with independence. It is not appropriate that protection should continue to be extended after independence, or that the independent State should continue to be bound by the treaty obligation to accept Her Majesty's Government's advice.

Sir J. Eden: Is it not quite clear from the set of documents concerned, certainly the earlier ones, that it was fully understood that it was Her Majesty's Government's declared intention that whether or not independence subsequently occurred we would continue to maintain an effective position to defend this area? Why have we abrogated unilaterally this agreement?

Mr. Padley: This matter was fully debated on the Defence White Paper a


week ago and has been the subject of exchanges across the Floor of the House. I have no such evidence.

Mr. Zilliacus: Will my hon. Friend accept the assurance that on this side of the House at any rate and in the country there will be overwhelming support, in view of the present economic situation, for cutting our commitments in the Middle East and that the Opposition are showing their total incapacity to govern if they want us to go on with these military commitments?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Apart from the moral commitments, would the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he has in fact consulted the Law Officers of the Crown on the terms of this treaty? Will he do so, because we have reasons to believe that a legal interpretation would say that this treaty can be abrogated only by mutual agreement?

Mr. Padley: The legal position as understood by Her Majesty's Government is that which I gave in my original reply.

Mr. Sandys: The Minister said that this treaty will lapse on independence. Does he realise that the request for independence was coupled inextricably with a request for the continuance of British protection by means of a defence agreement? Does he think that he can force independence unilaterally upon South Arabia whether they want it or not? It is quite clear they do not. Will he also confirm that in the recent talks the South Arabian Ministers once again accused Britain of breach of faith? Why did the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have speeches at Question Time.

Mr. Padley: I have nothing to add to the reply which the Prime Minister gave to original Questions which dealt with breach of faith.

Mr. Sandys: A twisted answer.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that the recent arrangements made for the supply of defence equipment and financial assistance for the defence forces of the Federation of South Arabia are acceptable to the Federal Government in lieu of a defence

treaty and/or the retention of the Aden base; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Padley: In the course of recent defence talks with Ministers of the South Arabian Federal Government Her Majesty's Government reaffirmed their intention to withdraw from the Aden base and not to have any defence agreement with the Government of South Arabia after independence. Against this background I have no reason to believe that the Federal Ministers are dissatisfied with the additional financial aid for their forces that we have been able to offer them.

Mr. Fisher: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that South Arabian Ministers told me very recently indeed that they consider the assistance we have offered is totally inadequate to maintain their territorial integrity and they feel themselves completely let down and betrayed by the Government? Surely Britain should honour her obligations and support her friends?

Mr. Padley: I answered the last part of that question when replying to Questions Nos. 8 and 70. Of course it is true that the federal rulers would like a comprehensive defence agreement—

Mr. Sandys: You are breaking your word.

Mr. Padley: —but in view of our withdrawal from Aden—

Mr. Sandys: Shame.

Mr. Padley: —which has been scheduled for 1968, the real issue is whether a contribution is to be made to the defence of the newly-emerging State. With that no one can disagree.

Lord Balniel: The real issue is one of good faith. I ask the hon. Gentleman how he expects that the Federation will he able to stand up to the aircraft which are operating in this part of the Middle East when it has achieved its independence?

Mr. Padley: This argument began as one of legality and it has now got to one of good faith. Hon. Members opposite have been unable to sustain either claim in two full-scale debates and in exchanges at Question Time over the last two months.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPE (NUCLEAR-FREE ZONE)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent he has reached agreement with the other North Atlantic Treaty Organisation powers on a basis of negotiation with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics consistent with proposals for establishing a zone in Europe free of nuclear weapons, foreign forces and military alliances, comprising the two Germanies and some of Germany's neighbours.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has for discussion with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the implementation of the policy for a European nuclear-free zone and for a non-proliferation treaty.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now initiate discussions with the Soviet and Polish Governments to work out an agreed basis of negotiation from the Rapacki-Gaitskell proposals for a nuclear-free zone in Europe, and then invite Great Britain's North Atlantic Treaty Organisation allies to negotiate on this basis.

Mr. George Thomson: I will, with permission, answer this Question, Question No. 16 and Written Question No. 4 together.
I would refer my hon. Friends to my reply to the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) and Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) on 11th July and to my right hon. Friend's statement in the foreign affairs debate on that day.

Mr. Zilliacus: In view of the urgent need for cutting our military commitments, is it not time that the Government made a real effort to apply the party's policy which would enable us to bring home the forces now on the Rhine?

Mr. Thomson: The Government are making continual efforts to improve East-West relations and to move towards a more secure position in Europe. The policies we are pursuing are in direct line with the policies which this party has always put forward.

Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour movement in this

House and outside is very concerned that there is so little progress in this field? Is he aware that it is impossible to make any political progress towards a political solution of the problems that divide Europe until we get these matters decided?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mrs. Short: Is he also aware that Britain's continued support of the war—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must resume her seat when Mr. Speaker stands. Questions must not be too long.

Mr. Thomson: I think there is concern everywhere about the need to make the maximum possible progress in better East-West relations. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has recently taken a particular initiative in this respect with his proposed code of co-operation between Eastern and Western countries in Europe.

Sir T. Beamish: In considering both these Questions, is the Minister bearing in mind the point of view of the hon. Members who have asked them that the the country's economic difficulties are sufficient reason for dishonouring our obligations?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Mr. Evelyn King: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that British arms are still being imported into Iraq and that they are being used to destroy Kurdish life and culture; and whether in these circumstances he will prohibit the sale of British arms to Iraq in the future.

Mr. Padley: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the written reply which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave on 11th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme).

Mr. King: If selective arms sales can be made an instrument of foreign policy in Vietnam, why not in Iraq? Is it not a fact that both the British Government and the League of Nations gave specific assurances to the Kurdish people which have never been fulfilled? Is it not a fact, further, that they will accept no


agreement unless there are international guarantees against the brutality now being imposed upon them?

Mr. Padley: Britain is a traditional supplier of arms to Iraq. We are not the only supplier. It is not the practice to explain in detail what transactions take place. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be glad that on 29th June the Prime Minister of Iraq announced a programme for the restoration of normal conditions in Iraq. This programme has received the support of the Kurdish leadership, and Her Majesty's Government hope that peace can be restored.

Mr. Thorpe: Is there not a case for suggesting that the Government's super salesman for arms is perhaps being too effective? Will not the hon. Gentleman look at this matter again?

Mr. Padley: I am sure that these arms were supplied before the super salesman was appointed.

Mr. King: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he now proposes to take following the recent meeting of the Western European Union to facilitate Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what assurances he obtained in his discussions with the French Foreign Minister concerning the terms upon which the French Government would be prepared to lift their veto upon Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he had with the French Foreign Secretary on his recent visit with regard to the United Kingdom joining the Common Market.

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement on the

progress of the exploratory talks undertaken by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and other Ministers in his Department concerning the prospects of Great Britain joining the European Economic Community.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) on 11th July and to that given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Members for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), South Angus, Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) and Westbury (Mr. Walters) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) on 12th July.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what steps the Government are taking to follow up Herr Schroeder's initiative, which was taken as a result of the admirable speech made by the Foreign Secretary's colleague, the right hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. George Thomson), and to devise a plan for Britain's early entry into the Common Market?

Mr. Stewart: We welcome Dr. Schroeder's speech, particularly because it mentioned study of the particular problems which would be involved in British entry. We are ourselves engaged in study of that kind and shall be having consultations with the members of the European Economic Community about them.

Mr. Campbell: Despite the efforts of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his talks in Europe, would not more progress be possible if the Government and the Parliamentary Labour Party did not speak with different voices on this?

Mr. Stewart: No, I do not think that is correct. I think we must recognise, first, that it would be desirable for this country to enter the Community but, secondly, that there are certain essentials which must be safeguarded. This matter cannot be over-simplified.

Mr. Ridley: Has not the French Prime Minister made it clear that Britain could not change the Common Market agricultural policy? As it is the Foreign Secretary's policy to join the Common Market, does he now accept that?

Mr. Stewart: No, I do not think that is true. The French Foreign Minister set out certain alternative ways in which the matter of agricultural policy could be handled.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Has not this country reason to be grateful, first to President de Gaulle that he kept us out of the Common Market, and now to the French Foreign Minister for doing the same?

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the Brussels Conference of the Western European Union on the suggestion that Great Britain should enter the Common Market represents the policy of the Government; and if he will cause to be placed in the Library of the House the full contents of that speech.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the recent conference of Western European Union in Brussels on Great Britain's relations with the European Common Market represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. M. Stewart: Yes, Sir. I have already placed a copy of this speech in the Library of the House.

Mr. Shinwell: Has my right hon. Friend observed that, when Ministers speak at Western European Union or elsewhere abroad, their speeches seem to go much further than their speeches in this country? Could he use his good offices in order to co-ordinate the oratorical efforts of his colleagues, and will he accept my assurance that I am intensely grateful for the opportunity to read the speech in full?

Mr. Stewart: When my right hon. Friend takes that opportunity, he will see that there is not the discrepancy which he fears.

Mr. Blaker: If the speech by the Chancellor of the Duchy does represent Government policy, is it not clear that the speech by the Prime Minister in Bristol in March does not represent Government policy?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman also must read the speech.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make available to hon. Members a copy of the recent report of the London Office of the European Communities on the degree of preparedness of the British economy for membership of the Common Market.

Mr. George Thomson: No, Sir.
I understand this was a confidential report from the diplomatic mission of the European Coal and Steel Community in London to the agency it represents. The question of its publication is not within the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Bruce-Gard3ne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that excerpts from the report were published in Le Monde on 5th and 6th June saying that the British economy has been so debilitated after 18 months of Socialism that it might contaminate other members of the Common Market if we were allowed in? Ought he not to get a copy and show it to the First Secretary as well?

Mr. Thomson: Both the High Authority of the E.C.S.C. and the E.E.C. Commission published denials on 7th June that the reports in the newspaper to which the hon. Gentleman refers in any way reflected their views.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH HONDURAS

Mr. Wood: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the state of negotiations with Mr. Webster on the dispute with Guatemala over the sovereignty of British Honduras.

Mr. Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions have recently taken place between the British and Guatemalan Governments on the future of British Honduras; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. M. Stewart: I would refer the right hon. Gentleman to my hon. Friend's reply of 11 th July to the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher).

Mr. Wood: Will not the Foreign Secretary go further than that? Will he now give a definite undertaking that no decision will be taken on this matter


without consulting the wishes of the inhabitants of the Colony?

Mr. Stewart: I can say that no final treaty will be signed with Guatemala without the full agreement of the Government of British Honduras.

Mr. Hunt: Is not the Foreign Secretary aware that rumours have been circulating for some time that, as a result of the secret talks under the American mediator, Guatemala is to assume control of the defence and foreign policy of British Honduras from December, 1968? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that any sell-out of this kind of a small but loyal member of the British Commonwealth would be deeply resented both by people in this country and in British Honduras?

Mr. Stewart: I repeat that no final treaty will be signed without the full agreement of the Government of British Honduras. The hon. Gentleman referred to "secret talks under the mediator". The hon. Gentleman will know that it is one of the conditions of the mediation that the proceedings should remain confidential. As he has used the phrase "secret talks", I should say that there have not been, as has been alleged, any secret talks between Her Majesty's Government and the Guatemalan Government on this matter.

Mr. Wood: Could not the Foreign Secretary go further and discountenance any settlement which is inimical to the wishes of the people of the Colony?

Mr. Stewart: No, I do not think I can go further than what I have said.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL KIELMANSEGG

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he raised no objection to the appointment of General Johann Adolf Graf von Kielmansegg as the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Central Europe Commander.

Mr. George Thomson: General Kielmansegg was previously Commander of the Allied Land Forces in Central Europe. His appointment followed the usual N.A.T.O. procedure.

Mrs. Short: Does not my right hon. Friend occasionally feel some qualms that

so many top jobs in N.A.T.O. are being occupied by former Nazi officers? Does he not feel it distasteful that British troops should be under the control of this man? Did not my right hon. Friend suggest that an officer from another nation should take this job when it became vacant? If not, why not?

Mr. Thomson: The position in regard to this post was that, as part of the streamlining of N.A.T.O. and the economy in expenditure which I hope my hon. Friend will approve, three posts in this command have been turned into one post. In view of the large German contribution to the N.A.T.O. forces in Central Europe, it seemed appropriate that the German Deputy-Commander should take over the single post which was left.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) suggested that N.A.T.O.'s land commander is a former Nazi.

Mrs. Short: He is.

Mr. Griffiths: Should not the hon. Lady substantiate that allegation?

Mrs. Short: She can.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOLY SEE

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now take steps to raise the status of Her Majesty's mission to the Holy See to that of an embassy.

Mr. George Thomson: I have nothing to add at present to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary gave in this House to the hon. Gentleman's Question on 21st February.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Is it not high time something was added to that reply? Is it not gravely discourteous to the Holy See, out of keeping with the dignity of Her Majesty, and regarded with resentment by Her Majesty's Catholic subjects, that this unique and anomalous situation should be allowed to continue?

Mr. Thomson: No, I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says, though I have sympathy with his original Question. Her Majesty's Government very


much appreciate the rôle that the Vatican is playing in international affairs today, but the. present arrangements seem to us to be appropriate at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH ARABIA (INDEPENDENCE)

Mr. Colin Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further plans he has for invoking United Nations assistance in the passage of South Arabia to independence by 1968.

Mr. Padley: We are at present considering this subject, in consultation with the Government of the Federation of South Arabia.

Mr. Jackson: Would not the Minister of State agree that, bearing in mind the useful work that the United Nations has done at other frontiers in the Middle East, if we could get an agreed observer team it might be at any rate one factor in helping to prevent disaster as the territory moves towards independence?

Mr. Padley: We should welcome the presence of U.N. observers at general elections in South Arabia. We are also very willing to explore, together with the Federal Government, any other practical means of establishing co-operation between the United Nations and the Governments in South Arabia in preparation for the territory's independence.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDONESIA

Mr. Colin Jackson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on present developments relating to economic and cultural links between Indonesia and Great Britain.

Mrs. White: I am hopeful that, as the political climate improves, economic and cultural links between Britain and Indonesia will be restored and, indeed, strengthened. The economic discussions in London last week were a first step in this direction. I am arranging for copies of the communiqué issued after the discussions to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Jackson: On the cultural side, is my hon. Friend aware that, as we are moving towards the end of confrontation,

the Indonesians are now genuinely anxious to restore educational links? Would she consider as a beginning the provision of a limited number of scientific textbooks?

Mrs. White: We shall be considering matters of that kind in consultation with the Indonesian Government. As my hon. Friend will have seen, we have agreed to expand our training programme under the Colombo Plan.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what arrangements have been made following his visit to Jakarta for discussions to take place on the compensation of British companies and individuals whose property in Indonesia has been sequestrated.

Mrs. White: This matter was discussed with the Indonesian Economic Mission in London last week. There will be further discussions in Jakarta prior to negotiations between the Indonesian Government and representatives of the British interests concerned. As my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary explained to the House on 4th July, the Indonesian Foreign Minister is fully aware of the importance of this matter.

Mr. Taylor: Has any estimate been made of the assets involved, and have the Indonesian Government accepted the principle of compensation?

Mrs. White: I am not aware that any accurate estimate has yet been made of the assets, but it was made perfectly clear that this is a very important matter which must be discussed, and it was agreed that it should be discussed in Jakarta.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN RELATIONS

Mr. Dickens: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to improve Anglo-Egyptian relations.

Mr. Padley: It was the United Arab Republic who broke off diplomatic relations with this country in December last, so terminating the dialogue which Her Majesty's Government initiated in 1964. In all the circumstances, there seems little we can do at present, though we should,


of course, welcome any genuine improvement in relations.

Mr. Dickens: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a most disappointing reply? Is he further aware that in a remarkable statement made by President Nasser in an interview given to the editor of The Guardian newspaper published today, he categorically asserts that this country is supplying combat pilots with the Lightning fighters at present being sold to Saudi Arabia? Is my hon. Friend aware that this is highly detrimental to Anglo-Egyptian relations, and will he confirm whether or not this is the case?

Mr. Padley: That is, of course, another question, but I must repeat that the Government of the U.A.R. have not expressed to us any willingness to resume diplomatic relations. If they do so, we shall consider any such request.

Mr. Fisher: Is it not very difficult indeed to re-establish normal diplomatic relations with a country which is quite deliberately inciting murder and violence in a territory for which we are still responsible?

Mr. Padley: No doubt, that is one of the problems, though that was not the ground on which diplomatic relations were broken.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the increase in terrorist outrages in Aden, greater powers over internal security will be given to the Federal Government of South Arabia.

Mr. Padley: I am not persuaded that the Federal Government would be better able to deal with terrorist outrages in Aden than the security forces at present available to the High Commissioner. We are, however, always ready to consider very earnestly any proposals which the Federal Government may make for the improvement of security in Aden provided that they are consistent with Her Majesty's Government's responsibility for law and order in the Colony of Aden.

Mr. Fisher: If we cannot ourselves adequately protect the lives of British Service men, their families and Arab

civilians in a British Colony, should not we try handing over the task to the Federal Government which is able and willing to discharge it?

Mr. Padley: The right hon Gentleman who leads for the Opposition on foreign affairs several weeks ago asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for a categorical assurance that Britain would not surrender reponsibility for security so long as British lives were at stake. That remains our policy.

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the present position in Aden.

Mr. Padley: There has recently been some increase in the number of terrorist incidents in Aden, but the security forces there will continue to take all possible measures to assure the safety of the law-abiding inhabitants. These outrages will not change our intention of bringing the whole of South Arabia to orderly independence by 1968.

Mr. Wall: In view of Her Majesty's Government proposed abrogation of their treaty obligations in South-East Asia, does not this mean that the political future of Aden is one of complete chaos, and is not this having its effect on security and endangering British lives?

Mr. Padley: I have already answered half a dozen questions about treaty obligations and moral responsibilities. cannot add to those replies. We still hope that the discussions which are to begin, we hope, on 1st August will bring about political agreement for stability in this area.

Mr. Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what grounds he informed Amnesty International that he did not think it appropriate for them to send an observer to Aden; whether he will reconsider this and provide every facility for the Swedish observer who is going; and whether he will publish the recent International Red Cross reports on Aden.

Mr. Padley: The persons in detention in Aden are held because there is evidence of their implication in terrorist activities. None is detained because of his political opinions which is the kind of detention


with which Amnesty International is usually concerned. It is therefore our view that no useful purpose would be served by a visit to Aden by a representative of Amnesty International. The reports by the International Red Cross representative on his visits to detention camps in Aden in March and May of this year are confidential and Her Majesty's Government are not at liberty to publish them.

Mr. Archer: If there is nothing to conceal, would not my hon. Friend agree that the sooner the fact is confirmed by an independent observer the better?

Mr. Padley: The practice in these matters is that the International Red Cross is the appropriate body, and the representative of the International Red Cross on his visits to Aden has been given full facilities to visit the camps and interview all the detainees personally so that he might satisfy himself as to their treatment.

Mr. Whitaker: Will my hon. Friend place a copy of the Red Cross report on the Library, as was done in the case of the report on the Hola Camp?

Mr. Padley: So far as my investigations have shown, no report by a Red Cross representative on a visit to a detention camp or similar establishment in a British dependent territory has been published by the British Government. But the House can be assured that the International Red Cross is free to inspect the camps and Her Majesty's Government take most serious notice of any points that are raised.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (REORGANISATION)

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, if he will make a statement on the proposals which Her Majesty's Government are making on the reorganisation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation in preparation for the meeting of Foreign Ministers in October.

Mr. George Thomson: We are discussing changes in the organisation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation with our allies, with the aim of reaching agreed decisions as soon as possible.

Mr. Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give a badly needed assurance that any widely advertised cuts that may be made in our N.A.T.O. commitments and in particular to the Rhine Army will reflect a balanced reappraisal of the military situation, and not simply a panicky desire to compensate for the mismanagement of our national finances by the present Government?

Mr. Thomson: That is a different question from the one on the Order Paper. With regard to the present reorganisation of N.A.T.O., discussions are going on in the North Atlantic Council, and the best way is to see how these come out. We are seeking a general agreement amongst all members of N.A.T.O.

Mr. Walters: Is the Prime Minister discussing in Moscow any proposals which the Soviet Union Government may have for the reorganisation of the Warsaw Pact? Obviously, any thinning-out in Europe must be dependent on that.

Mr. Thomson: There is another Question on the Order Paper on the subject which I ought not to anticipate. Neither should I anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement to the House when he returns.

Lord Balniel: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any new initiative is being taken by N.A.T.O. to secure a balanced and observed thinning-out of troops along the Warsaw Pact and N.A.T.O. frontier areas?

Mr. Thomson: The position is that at the last Ministerial meeting of N.A.T.O. it was agreed that the N.A.T.O. Permanent Council should take up actively the various methods of improving East-West relations. We have made our own proposals in this matter and there are now a series of studies being undertaken within the Permanent Council of N.A.T.O.

Mr. Zilliacus: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that in approaching these questions the Government will bear in mind the principle that defence must be the servant and not the master of foreign policy, and that accordingly failure to reach agreement on how to make peace with the Soviet Union will entail the ending of our N.A.T.O. commitment to go to war in case of unprovoked aggression?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir, we agree absolutely on my hon. Friend's initial proposition, and it is for this reason that we feel that progress with a political settlement in Europe has to be obtained before one can make progress with effective disarmament.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-EAST ASIA (DEFENCE)

Mr. Luard: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to bring about the establishment of a representative local defence organisation in South-East Asia which might progressively take over responsibility for the defence of the area.

Mr. M. Stewart: We welcome any measures of increased co-operation among the countries of the area which increase their ability to defend themselves. But it is for the countries concerned to decide for themselves in the first instance what form of defence organisation will suit them best.

Mr. Luard: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the representative character of an organisation of this kind is of great importance and that, therefore, something based, for example, on the present association in South-East Asia might be a much more effective organisation in the long run than either S.E.A.T.O. is at present or the kind of anti-Communist coalition, including South Korea and Formosa, which has been meeting recently in the Far East?

Mr. Stewart: That might be in the long run, but I think my hon. Friend will agree that this is a matter on which the countries concerned must take the initiative. When I was visiting some of these countries recently, I discussed the matter with them and indicated that we would welcome any development of this kind that was agreeable to them.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that these countries in South-East Asia will have much confidence in any initiative taken by Her Majesty's present advisers when they are running out of existing obligations in South-West Asia?

Mr. Stewart: Hon. Members opposite have tried to say that several times, and

the hon. Gentleman has now tried again but with no more success.

Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the United Nations presence in this area might be valuable?

Mr. Stewart: There are a number of areas in the world where there is a United Nations presence, but, as my hon. Friend knows, it is difficult to extend the authority and powers of the United Nations. We for our part have been extremely anxious to do so and have made clear our general support for the concept of United Nations authority.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION (CONVENTIONS)

Mr. Dickens: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the general policy of Her Majesty's Government on the implementation of conventions by the International Labour Office.

Mrs. White: Her Majesty's Government ratify International Labour Organisation Conventions when domestic law and practices conform with the provisions of the Convention in question. Since it is our policy to ratify as many of the Conventions as possible, conditions are altered whether by legislation or other appropriate means to conform with the provisions of the Conventions wherever this is necessary and desirable.

Mr. Dickens: Whilst I am grateful for that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend whether she will take note of the fact that many of us on this side of the House want to see the early implementation of two recent Conventions, namely, Convention 100 on equal pay for equal work and Convention 111 dealing with discrimination in employment? Can she consult her right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour with a view to the early implementation of both Conventions?

Mrs. White: As the House was informed in a reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) on 20th May, he is engaged in discussions about equal pay with both sides of industry. As to the other Convention on discrimination, there is a Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will initiate negotiations with the United States Government with a view to eliminating the obstacles to a full exchange of information relating to the manufacture and delivery of nuclear weapons between the British and French Governments.

Mr. M. Stewart: No, Sir.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Why not? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, instead of shedding crocodile tears about French nuclear tests, Her Majesty's Government might be better advised to seek to provide the French with the information and co-operation they need to avoid the need to hold these tests, particularly as this might assist us to enter the Common Market?

Mr. Stewart: No, Sir. In the first place, that would be inconsistent with agreements we have already with the United States. Secondly, if, as I think follows from the trend of the hon. Gentleman's question, this was leading towards anything like a separate European nuclear force, it would be most undesirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH-EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANISATION (COUNCIL MEETING)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent South-East Asia Treaty Organisation conference.

Mr. M. Stewart: I attended the 11th Council Meeting of the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation which was held at Canberra from 27th to 29th June. A valuable consensus of agreement was reached on how the problems of the area should be faced and, as I told the House on 11th July, on the importance of the stabilising rôle the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation has to play in South-East Asia. At the meeting, I confirmed Her Majesty's Government's support for the Organisation and our determination to fulfil our obligations under the Manila Treaty.

Mr. Marten: Ought not the Government to go a little further than that and

come out clearly with a strong determination to strengthen by our own contribution the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation?

Mr. Stewart: We made clear—I think that this was the sensible thing to do —that we stand by all our commitments under the treaty, but we do not propose to widen those commitments.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Have we the military resources for the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation? Would it be possible, without conscription, to engage in large military expeditions to fulfil our obligations under the treaty?

Mr. Stewart: Yes, Sir; the treaty requires that, if circumstances arise in which it is invoked, each member country must decide what action is appropriate in the light of prevailing circumstances.

Mr. A. Royle: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that, if he is requested under the S.E.A.T.O. treaty by one of the other members of the Organisation to give military help in case of need, he wi11 carry out his obligation under the treaty?

Mr. Stewart: I have just said that the obligation under the treaty is for each country to decide what action is appropriate in the prevailing circumstances. It is not more definite than that.

Mr. Sandys: It was reported in the newspapers that the right hon. Gentleman, when he was in Canberra, had discussions with the Australian Government about the possibility of establishing British base facilities in Australia. If that is so, can he say in what circumstances he envisages that we might need those facilities?

Mr. Stewart: I shall not go into as many hypotheses as that. We did discuss this possibility as one of the circumstances that might arise.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not a fact that S.E.A.T.O. does not include important nations in the area, and are not its decisions invalidated in some degree by that?

Mr. Stewart: It is true that it does not include important nations in the area, but its members are required in certain


circumstances, in the event of attack on any members, to decide what appropriate action to take.

Oral Answers to Questions — THAILAND (BRITISH FORCES)

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions he has had with the United Kingdom's allies about sending British troops to Thailand.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what request he has received for the dispatch of British troops to Thailand.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will give an assurance that British troops now in Malaysia will not be sent to Thailand, or to any other neutral country, for the purpose of direct or indirect participation in the war in Vietnam.

Mr. M. Stewart: As I explained to the House on 4th July, there has been no request for us to send troops to Thailand, and I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins), the assurance for which he asks.

Mr. Marten: If there were a request, would there be any objection to adding to the 400 British troops who are already there?

Mr. Stewart: That is an entirely hypothetical question. No such request has been received.

Mr. Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that on both sides of the House there are Members who will be grateful for that assurance, which he has reaffirmed this afternoon, but will he not go further? Has he seen the report of the Gallup poll today which shows that only one-third of the people of this country approve American policy in Vietnam, and will he not associate himself with the majority of people in this country?

Mr. Stewart: I noticed also a poll indicating the steady growth of support for Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Vietnam. One of the morals one must draw from this is that one cannot frame a policy by adding up answers to Gallup poll questions.

Lord Balniel: With respect, does not the right hon. Gentleman's answer give a slightly misleading impression? Are there not already British troops in Thailand, and can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the military base which they are constructing there is yet operational?

Mr. Stewart: It is not yet operational. As has been said already in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, there is a Royal Engineers airfield construction unit engaged in building a military airfield in North-East Thailand.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Foreign Secretary make his assurance a little more categorical and say that there will be no troops sent there from Britain or from Malaysia to replace the 25,000 American troops who are there and who might be sent to Vietnam?

Mr. Stewart: I must repeat that there have been no requests at all from Thailand for troops. If there ever were such a request, obviously we should have to consider whether this did in any way join up with our obligations under the South-East Asia Treaty Organisation. But these questions are entirely hypothetical.

Oral Answers to Questions — S.O.E. IN FRANCE

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that the publication of "Special Operations Executive in France" was not timed to follow the present discussions with the French authorities over the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mrs. White: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I confirm that my correspondence with Ministers shows what the hon. Lady has said, that this date is purely coincidental; but is it not disgraceful and dishonourable of the Prime Minister to answer a Question through a Departmental Minister and attempt to disown the author of the book, who has written a most excellent book from incomplete records, when it is an official publication by Her Majesty's Stationery Office?

Mrs. White: I am sorry, but I do not follow the hon. Gentleman's question. I


appreciate that he tried to put a Question to the Prime Minister and was refused, so he may have a grudge on that account, but there was no connection whatever between the publication of this book and the unilateral declaration by France on her position in N.A.T.O. I do not see the connection.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMBASSIES AND AGENCIES OVERSEAS

(COMMERCIAL STAFFS)

Mr. Gregory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what support he will give to United Kingdom embassies and agencies overseas, particularly in Eastern Europe, with commercial, technical and scientific assistance to back the efforts of industry and the British Nuclear Export Executive in the sale of the advance gas-cooled reactor and other British nuclear power systems.

Mrs. White: The commercial staffs of our embassies are ready to give every assistance to the nuclear power industry in their efforts to sell abroad. Where full-time services of experts qualified in highly specialised subjects are needed we shall, with the advice of the appropriate Ministries, do our best to see that they are forthcoming.

Mr. Gregory: As the present trade talks in both Czechoslovakia and Rumania are of a highly technical and complicated nature, would my hon. Friend agree that there is every case for urgently supplying technical and scientific staffs in both Prague and Bucharest to assist industry in its efforts?

Mrs. White: If we are convinced that it is necessary and that the volume of work requires it, we will consider the matter. However, I would refer my hon. Friend to the passages in the Plowden Report on the Overseas Service which are concerned with this.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT

(COMPENSATION PAYMENTS)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of discus-

sions with the Government of the United Arab Republic on the restitution of, or payment of compensation for, the property of British nationals in Egypt which still remains under sequestration.

Mrs. White: The negotiations which were forecast in the Written Reply I gave to the hon. Gentleman on 9th May are now taking place at the official level. I am not in a position to say anything more at this stage.

Mr. Wall: Can the hon. Lady say whether she is satisfied that the terms of the Anglo-U.A.R. financial agreement are being observed, particularly with regard to the repatriation of personal effects and money?

Mrs. White: We are negotiating to ensure that we obtain satisfactory conditions. The negotiations are not yet complete.

ANGLO-ARGENTINE TRAMWAYS COMPANY

Sir W. Teeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recent change of Government in the Argentine and the dismissal of the Supreme Court, he will make representations to ensure that earlier judgments of the Supreme Court concerning the Anglo-Argentine Tramways Company are respected and efforts made to have these judgments more speedily settled.

Mrs. White: I have no reason to doubt that the earlier judgments of the Supreme Court concerning the Anglo-Argentine Tramways Company will be respected by the present Government of Argentina

Sir W. Teeling: Have Her Majesty's Government done anything about it in the last three weeks? As we are very hard up these days, would it not be a good thing to get a little increase in our invisible exports?

Mrs. White: We have no occasion to do anything about it because we have received assurances, and the assurances were made public, by General Ongania on 30th June that the Republic will strictly comply with undertakings entered into.

SPECIAL OPERATIONS EXECUTIVE (MR. ALFRED NEWTON)

Mr. Walters: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish the records relating to Mr. Alfred Newton, a member of the Special Operations Executive, in order to confirm his promotion to captain on the field.

Mrs. White: Mr. Newton's personal file shows that he was gazetted 2nd lieutenant in July, 1942, and that he was promoted lieutenant in October that year. There is no record of his having been promoted to captain or of a message in this sense having ever been passed to him in France.

Mr. Walters: Is the hon. Lady aware that two documents were sent by the War Office in which "captain" was overtyped by "lieutenant", and that one of these, a letter dated 26th July, 1946, is still in Mr. Newton's possession, and that Flight Officer Vera Atkins, one of Colonel Buckmaster's assistants, is prepared to say that, as far as she can remember, a message was sent about his promotion to captain. Bearing in mind Mr. Newton's outstanding record and the treatment which he received, should not the Minister look into the matter more sympathetically and not just quote the record?

Mrs. White: I was asked what the records would show if we published them. We have examined the records most carefully, and they do not indicate what the hon. Gentleman suggests. But Mr. Newton is someone for whom we all must have the greatest respect and regard, and if the hon. Member has any evidence which he would like to bring to our notice we should be very glad indeed to study it.

Dame Irene Ward: Is the hon. Lady aware that I have already raised this matter and that I have been asked to allow the correspondence to go on to the Minister of Defence? Is it not a fact that in view of the treatment meted out to Mr. Newton it is about time those concerned took the matter seriously, especially in view of the very small award that he is at present getting from Her Majesty's Government?

Mrs. White: With great respect to the hon. Lady, Mr. Newton is receiving 100

per cent. disability pension and other payments. He has also been compensated from the West German Government compensation fund for victims of Nazi persecution. I repeat that if there is any further evidence as to his rank-we have nothing in our records-we shall be glad to look at it.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The whole House will welcome what the hon. Lady has said about trying to do her best to give moral recognition to this very gallant officer.

BRISTOL (PASSPORT OFFICE)

Mr. Ellis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will open a passport office in Bristol.

Mrs. White: No, Sir. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) on 11th July, a new Branch Passport Office is to be opened in 1967 at Newport (Mon.). Newport offers a better supply of clerical labour, of which there is some shortage in Bristol, and was chosen largely for that reason.

Mr. Ellis: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, if one is good at mathematics, Bristol is much better situated geographically to deal with the whole of the South-West Region? Is it not the natural centre?

Mrs. White: I am very sorry, but as a good Monmouthshire woman I could not agree.

SIERRE LEONE (NEWSPAPER CORRESPONDENT)

Mr. Evelyn King: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he is aware that Mr. David Loshak, staff correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, following his expulsion from Nigeria, has now been arrested and detained pending deportation in Freetown, Sierra Leone; what action has been taken by the British High Commissioner; and whether he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Arthur Bottom-ley): Mr. Loshak was served with an


order on 14th July directing that he be detained in police custody until he could leave conveniently by air from Sierra Leone.
Our High Commissioner made representations that he be allowed to depart the next day, but was informed that Mr. Loshak's papers were being examined with a view to prosecuting him, apparently in connection with two articles published in the Daily Telegraph on 11 th and 13th July
A further request that he be released from police custody meanwhile was rejected. Mr. Loshak may appear in court today.
Our High Commission has visited Mr. Loshak and arrangements have been made for his legal defence. He is in good health and is being well treated.

Mr. King: While expressing sympathy with Mr. Loshak, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Sierra Leone is not in receipt of British economic aid'? Is it not possible that Mr. Loshak's real offence is that he gave publicity to the fact that the short-term debts in Sierra Leone now amount to about £ 33½ million? Is it not also a fact—and this is the most important part—that, during the last 18 months, no less than 10 British correspondents with political views ranging from those of the Observer to those of the Daily Telegraph have been expelled from British Commonwealth countries?
Will the Secretary of State concede that, if British Commonwealth countries were so to censor British dispatches that we were unable to gain accurate information as to the economic state of a country, such action could not be condoned by this House and that his Department should make known its views throughout the Commonwealth about it?

Mr. Bottomley: The references in the articles in the Daily Telegraph and the statement about the economic position may not be factual. That is something that must be further examined and tested. But, of course, I acknowledge at once that, whereas a Commonwealth Government have the right to expel a subject if necessary, Her Majesty's Government equally have the right, if they feel that there is injustice, to make the strongest possible representations.
I am sure that I speak for the House as a whole when I say that I regret the expulsion of journalists and broadcasters. Those of us engaged in public life must, at times, feel that the Press is not as fair or objective as it might be, but the occasions when we perhaps have such a feeling are relatively few. What we all must bear in mind it that that is the price we have to pay if we are to safeguard the freedom of the Press, the liberty of the subject and the fundamental rights of freedom of speech.

Sir J. Hobson: This gentleman is being put on charge in the courts of Sierra Leone. What is the charge? How can someone be charged in Sierra Leone for writing in the free Press of this country?

Mr. Bottomley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer and I am sure that he would agree with me that, at the moment, it may be unwise for me to make further comment. [HoN.MEMBERS: "Oh."] The matter is sub judice and I repeat that, in the interests of our fellow countryman, it might be better to leave the matter at the moment in the present situation.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not my right hon. Friend recall occasions when the British Government have expelled Africans from this country, for one reason or another, perhaps justifiably, and when this has caused terrible comment—indeed, almost violent comment—in this House? Why cannot we occasionally make a comment about the expulsion of British citizens from African countries?

Mr. Bottomley: As I have said, I have aready made representations. I deplore the expulsion of journalists and broadcasters from other countries.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question put to him by my right hon and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Learning-ton (Sir J. Hobson). The individual case may be sub judice, but the question of principle is how anyone can be charged in the courts of Sierra Leone for articles appearing in British newspapers.

Mr. Bottomley: The action taken is legal in Sierra Leone under the Non-Citizen (Registration, Immigration and Expulsion) Act

Mr. Leadbitter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this particular mode of expulsion is becoming a matter of grave concern in this country. Is my right hon. Friend in a position to make a further statement today about a Central African correspondent who, I understand, is being expelled from Salisbury today although an order for his expulsion last May was declared void?

Mr. Bottomley: This case is to be particularly deplored. I regret that I have no opportunity of making to the illegal régime the same representations which I have been able to make to the Sierra Leone Government.

Mr. Sandys: Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that this case is to be particularly deplored?

Mr. Bottomley: All of us who have had the opportunity of listening to the B.B.C. broadcasts will have noted their objectivity. Indeed, the illegal régime at times has acknowledged their objectivity. I took the opportunity of saying that in the case put to me in the Question perhaps the facts in the article were not incontrovertible.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert Bowden): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a business statement.
The Economic Statement foreshadowed by the Prime Minister on Thursday last will be made on Wednesday. It would, therefore, be to the convenience of the House if the Third Reading of the Finance Bill were to be deferred.
Consequently, the business for this week has been rearranged as follows:
TUESDAY, 19TH JULY—Remaining stages of the Industrial Development Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 20TH JULY, AND THURSDAY, 21sT JULY—Selective Employment Payments Bill.
Committee stage.
MONDAY, 25TH JULY—Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill.
Second Reading of the Malawi Republic Bill [Lords].
Motion on the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Order.
TUESDAY, 26TH JULY—Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
Second Reading of the Lesotho Independence Bill [Lords].

Mr. Heath: Is the Leader of the House aware, first, that the fact that he has to come before the House at the beginning of the week and reorganise the whole of the business for the week shows quite clearly that when he made his statement last Thursday he did not have a clue that the Prime Minister was to make the economic statement on Wednesday? Does not this confirm absolutely the Government's total unpreparedness for the economic storm which has hit them?
Secondly, why is the Iron and Steel Bill being put before the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, when, in these circumstances, its Second Reading should be dropped altogether?
Thirdly, will the Leader of the House recognise that the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, with its comparatively limited scope, will be no substitute for a full economic debate?

Mr. Bowden: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister clearly made it known to the country and the House on leaving for Moscow that he would make his statement as soon as possible on his return.
The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's second question is that on Monday of next week my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has an important meeting at The Hague with international Finance Ministers and that it would, therefore, not be possible on that day to take the Third Reading of the Finance Bill. We propose, therefore, to continue, as announced on Thursday, with the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill. We shall take the Third Reading of the Finance Bill on Tuesday of next week.
Perhaps we can discuss through the usual channels whether another debate should take place.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that last Thursday the Prime Minister said that a statement was to be made, that he then said that it would be made in good time before the House rose


for the Recess, which the Leader of the House has said would be about 9th August, that on Friday it was moved forward to the middle of next week, that it has now been moved to Wednesday of this week, and that it should have been made last Thursday?

Mr. Bowden: I am not clear whether the right hon. Gentleman is sorry or pleased that the statement is to be made on Wednesday of this week. What my right hon. Friend is doing is making it as soon as possible.

Mr. Lubbock: Bearing in mind that deflationary action has been taken by the Government in raising Bank Rate to 7 per cent., and that this deflationary action will be further intensified on Wednesday, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Selective Employment Tax, which takes effect in the autumn, will lead to serious unemployment when put on top of these measures? Therefore, instead of arranging for the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, will he have the Bill recommitted to the House so that this tax can be deleted?

Mr. Bowden: No, Sir.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the connection between the Prime Minister's statement and the Third Reading of the Finance Bill? He said that it would be for the convenience of the House. Why should it be convenient for the House?

Mr. Bowden: The right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot recall the business statement of last Thursday. Originally, the Third Reading of the Finance Bill was to have been tomorrow. Of course, it would have been quite inappropriate to have discussed the Third Reading of the Finance Bill the day before the financial statement.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If the Prime Minister had not gone to Moscow, would he not have been indignantly attacked by the Leader of the Opposition for neglecting his duty?

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: As the only thing to be discussed on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill is what is in the Finance Bill, what relevance has that to what the Prime Minister will say on Wednesday?

Mr. Bowden: I agree that, technically, all that can be discussed on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill is the content of the Bill, but we have very often conducted a much wider debate.

Mr. Grimond: May we press the right hon. Gentleman a little on this? Is he suggesting that the new measures which the Prime Minister is to announce on Wednesday will be debatable during the Third Reading of the Finance Bill?

Mr. Bowden: No, Sir. That is not what is suggested. What I have said is that if the Opposition feel that a further day is required we can discuss that through the usual channels, but I have said, in addition, that some of the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be putting before the House on Wednesday might be discussed on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill.

Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Government cannot face a debate tomorrow on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, in view of its total irrelevance to the present situation?

Mr. Bowden: When one alters the business of the House to suit what, in the view of the Government, is the general convenience of the House so as to discuss the Third Reading of the Finance Bill after a statement, I regard it as rather unkind of the right hon. Gentleman, to put it no higher, that he should feel that he wants tomorrow to discuss the Third Reading of the Finance Bill and then to have the statement the day after.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: On a point of order. Do I understand—I ask for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker—that on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill we shall be allowed to range wide over the whole economic situation?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair will never rule in advance of a debate.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend be a little more generous in his chiding of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition? Does he not realise that the right hon. Gentleman is facing intense competition on the Opposition Front Bench?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. In view of your Ruling in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), may I ask you for an assurance, Mr. Speaker, that the Government have not yet approached you about widening the debate on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill?

Mr. Speaker: That is not the kind of question which an hon. Member should put to the Chair. The simple answer is, "No".

Mr. Sandys: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Iron and Steel Bill, which involves heavy Government expenditure on compensation, is a highly inflationary Measure? Will he consider postponing the Second Reading debate on that Bill so that the Cabinet may have a further opportunity to consider whether it is right, in present circumstances, to proceed with the Bill?

Mr. Bowden: I recognise that the Iron and Steel proposals were one of the issues on which the Government won a handsome mandate some weeks ago.

Mr. Rankin: Is not the question of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) an argument for reducing the compensation to the iron and steel industry?

Mr. Speaker: Order. All that we need at the moment are business questions.

Mr. Carlisle: If the Leader of the House says that the purpose of bringing the Iron and Steel Bill forward to next Monday is because a mandate was given for the Bill at the last election, could he explain upon what basis the compensation terms of the Bill have been changed since the election.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand that there is going to be an opportunity to debate the Iron and Steel Bill.

Mr. Ridley: In view of the catastrophic effect upon our finances of the Iron and Steel Bill, to come up for Second Reading next Monday, is it not disgraceful that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not intend to be here, to listen to the debate?

Mr. John Hall: Does the announced change of business mean that the proposals we are to hear from the Prime Minister will make the present Finance Bill completely inappropriate? Does the fact that we are having a Third Reading of the Finance Bill next week mean that it really is to be withdrawn and that we are to be given a different Bill?

Mr. Bowden: No, Sir.

BILL PRESENTED

INSURANCE COMPANIES

Bill to increase the minimum paid-up share capital and margin of solvency required by an insurance company to which the Insurance Companies Act 1958 applies; to give powers of inspection to the Board of Trade in relation to those matters; and to provide that such an insurance company transacting motor insurance business shall make to the Board of Trade certain stipulated returns during its first five years of operation, presented by Mr. Keith Stainton; supported by Mr. William Hamling, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. Peter Mills, Mr. Edward M. Taylor, and Mr. John Wells; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 2nd December, and to be printed. [Bill 82.]

SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Leader of the House to move the Motion I thought that it would help hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House if I indicated at the outset of the debate which Amendments I have selected. The House will appreciate that the Chair has been faced with some difficult decisions in selecting which of the 52 Amendments for the Government's allocation of time should be called.
I should explain to the House why it did not prove practical to select certain of these Amendments. In any proposal to restrict the time of the House, put forward by the Government, it would seem proper to give the Opposition the right to oppose and, for that reason I have not selected Amendments of any Government supporters, especially as many of them would place further restrictions upon the Opposition.
Secondly, it is necessary for me to up-hold the rule of relevancy and to avoid, on a Motion relating to the allocation of time, calling any Amendments which might more properly be debated on the Bill itself. For that reason, among others,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Selective Emplyoment Payment Bills:


Commitee


5 1. The Proceedings in Committee on the Bill shall be completed in three allotted days, and shall be brought to a conclusion at the times shown in the following Table:—



Day
Proceedings
Time for Conclusion





p.m.



First allotted day
Clause 1
7.30


10

Clause 2
—



Second allotted day
Clause 2 so far as not already disposed of.
6.30




Clauses 3 and 4
9.00




Clauses 5 and 6
11.30




Clauses 7 and 8
6.00


15
Third allotted day
Clauses 9 to 12
8.30




New Clauses, Schedules and new Schedules.
11.30




Report and Third Reading


20
2. The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and—



(a) the Proceedings on Consideration of the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion at half-past eight o'clock on that


25
(b) the Proceedings on Third Readingof the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion at half-past eleven o'clock on that

I have not selected Amendments which might canvass the merits of individual Amendments to the Bill.

With these two principles chiefly in mind I have selected the following Amendments: Amendment No. 3, with which we can discuss Amendment No. 6; Amendment No. 8, with which we can discuss Amendment No. 17; Amendment No. 10, with which we can discuss Amendment Nos. 11, 12 and 13; Amendment No. 51; and Amendment No. 52.

It may assist the House if I describe the course of the debate. I shall call the Leader of the House in a moment to move the Motion standing in his name. There will then be a general debate on that Motion and at some appropriate time during the evening I will then call on the mover of the first Amendment selected to propose his Amendment to the Motion proposed by the Leader of the House. Subsequently, after all the Amendments selected have been disposed of, the main Question will again be proposed and a decision taken on that.

3.55 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Herbert Bowden): I beg to move,

Extra time on allotted days


30
3.—(l) On an allotted day, paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business) shall apply to the Proceedings on the Bill for one and a half hours after ten o'clock.


(2) Any period during which Proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after ten o'clock under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) shall be in addition to the said period of one and a half hours (or in addition to any longer period for which, on a Motion made under paragraph (2)(b) of the said Standing Order No. 2 that Order applies).


Exclusion of Standing Order No. 43


35
4. Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committees) shall not apply to this Order.


Proceedings on going into Committee



5. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any question, notwithstanding that notice of an Instruction has been given.


40
Order of Proceedings in Committee



6. No Motion shall be made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule.


Conclusion of Proceedings in Committee


45
7. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.


Dilatory motions



8. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, Proceedings on the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.


50
Standing Order No. 13



9. Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business) shall not apply on an allotted day.


Private business


55
10.—(1) Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o' clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the


60
Proceedings on the Bill or, if those Proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.


65
(2) The foregoing sub-paragraph shall not apply on a day on which a Motion is made under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance.) and no opposed private business shall be taken on such an allotted day.


Conclusion of Proceedings


70
11.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall: forthwith proceed to put the following Question (but no others), that is to say—


75
(a) the Question or Questions already proposed from the Chair, or necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);


(b) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the order paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;


80
(c) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and on an amendment so moved, or a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the question that the amendment be made, or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.



(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House


85
(3) If, at Seven o'clock on an allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under 85 this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stai[...] over until those Proceedings have concluded.

These timetable Motions are never popular with the Opposition of the day, whichever party may be in power. But the House should consider very carefully before it assumes that all forms of time-tabling are automatically wrong. We no longer regard it as wrong to timetable Prayers or to timetable Money Resolutions. The House has been anxious in past months to revise its procedure and to find more efficient ways of conducting its business at reasonable hours. One obvious way to do this is to allocate

available time—and time is always in short supply—so that the very best use can be made of it.

We shall, however, no doubt be told this afternoon that the Government are trying to stifle debate—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and to force through a Measure which has not been adequately considered by the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Of course, the cheers are the normal coinage of debates on allocation of time Motions at all times.

However, this Motion does nothing of the kind, because it does not skimp debate. It provides adequate time for discussion of a major Bill and, even more important, it ensures that the time available is directed to the most important parts of that Bill. It reflects little credit on this House when, for tactical, political reasons, or for any other reason, the time of the House or of a Committee is wasted by fruitless debates on procedural matters with the express object of preventing consideration of a particular Measure.

Timetabling, whatever else may be said of it, at least prevents such tactics and it discourages interminable and excessive discussion which will always tend to bring Parliament into disrepute. But the allocation of time to the Measure under consideration must always be reasonable and adequate, and, as I have said, in the Government's view this timetable Motion is both reasonable and adequate.

There is, I know, strong feeling in many parts of the House that the opportunities for delay which the procedures of the House provide, endanger the democratic forms as we now observe them. This is no new thing. In my researches on debates on former allocation of time Motions—and there are plenty of them—I was interested to read a quotation from our old friend Mr. Chuter Ede who said:
 My experience of the House has been that under no Government of modern times has legislation been too swift. The danger to Parliamentary democracy in this country is not from the speed but the slowness of the forms that were used when this country was less populous than it is…".

Timetable Motions mean that there is concentration on selected imported points, and it is a matter for the Opposition of the day, within the timetable Motion, to select those important points. The unimportant and the less important pass through fairly quickly. They prevent a few Members from behaving in a dilatory manner and delaying our proceedings.

Within the last few years, when a debate on an Amendment to the Finance Bill, for instance, has been adequately debated and both Front Bench spokesmen have spoken and the House is ready to take a decision, we have become used

to the habit and custom of Members jumping up in their places and starting the discussion all over again. This is acting in a dilatory manner and it delays our proceedings.

However, I need hardly say that no Government like to have such Motions. But the decision to have this Motion had to be taken in the context of a statement attributed to the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod), that at least 10 days would be required in the House to deal with the Bill. Such a request is so obviously unreasonable that I am prepared to admit that he was probably incorrectly reported. If this is so, we should perhaps rest on The Times report of 1st July that the Opposition estimate was that at least three days would be required for the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. Edward Heath: I corrected that on Thursday. That was not in any way the Opposition's view. It was the Government's view, and that was where The Times got it wrong.

Mr. Bowden: I am quoting what The Times actually said. The Times attributed the figure of 10 days to the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, rightly or wrongly.
The Motion does no more than the Opposition were then suggesting. We shall have three full days of debate plus an extra hour and a half each day, which is almost the equivalent of another ordinary sitting day. But the Opposition now tell us that there are more than 300 Amendments to the Selective Employment Payments Bill and that this indicates the overwhelming need for generous provision of Parliamentary time. But the number of Amendments tabled, as anyone who has been in the House for any length of time knows, is hardly a criterion to apply and it is very often misleading.
The Bill is a short one, of 12 Clauses, so it is very easy to identify the major issues which call for debate. In drawing up the Motion we have tried, on expert advice, to apportion the available time to the Clauses and Schedules according to their importance. I made it clear on Thursday, however, during the exchanges on the business statement, that if within the time available the Opposition wished


to adjithe allocation we made, we shouldof everything possible to meet them.
There is a large number of Amendments to this Motion on the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker has indicated his selection of them. It might help the House if I were to say that I am prepared to recommend to the House that we look sympathetically at the last two Amendments which Mr. Speaker has selected—one which adds to the time table any time taken up at 3.30 p.m. by statements, and the last one, proposing the deletion of that paragraph of the Motion dealing with grave disorder. We know that these things happen very infrequently.
I think that the Motion before the House provides a reasonable and generous amount of time. If one analyses it, it amounts to about 10 sitting days in Committee if taken upstairs, or four days' debate in Committee on the Floor of the House, when one allows for one-and-a-half hours' additional time at the end of each day.
If one reads through the debates on timetable Motions generally one finds many quotations. Everything has been said on many occasions so felicitously that one is tempted to read out former speeches. I could have done this very easily, merely substituting a reference to this Motion for the reference to the Motion previously considered. It would be easy enough to replace references to this Motion for those made by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod), when he moved his last timetable Motion.
Perhaps I may be permitted to refer to just one quotation which was made by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, in the debate on the Allocation of Time Motion in respect of the Licensed Premises in New Towns Bill. This in itself was a quotation from another former Leader of the House, so that hon. Members will see that I could go to great lengths on these lines.
Sir David Maxwell Fyfe said:
It was interesting to find how a speech that had been made by one hon. Gentleman who sat on the Opposition side, was answered by himself when he sat on the Government side, in the same terms as were used by the Member of the Government who replied to him when he was in opposition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st July, 1952; vol. 504, c. 51.]

In fact, every positive charge in this field is balanced by a negative. It is customary in debates of this kind for the Opposition of the day to attack the Government on the ground that what they are doing is without precedent for one reason or another.
This type of accusation and counteraccusation seems to have little profit in it. I have been looking at the precedents. Since 1945, 18 Bills have been guillotined, 15 under Conservative Governments and three under Labour Governments. In reading the speeches on these occasions, it is surprising to note the similarity of the arguments used. The plain fact is that on each occasion the Government have felt it essential to get through important business, and no one has questioned the Government's right to do that, which, quite properly, the Opposition have been doing everything in their power to oppose.
There is, therefore, very little new to say, and I am sure that all of us, with perhaps the exception of our new colleagues, who have been here a matter of a few months, will feel, in listening to me and to the speeches during the rest of the day, that we have all been here before. Bills have been guillotined before the Committee stage. The Transport Bill is a case in point, and it is certainly not without precedent for money Bills to be subject to an allocation of Time Motion. We are not yet sure whether this is a Money Bill. That is a matter for us to decide.
In the debate on the allocation of Time Motion on the Pipe-lines Bill, in 1962 the then Leader of the House fairly set out the position when he said:
 We can wait to get the Bill in the time that the Opposition think right, which, in practical terms, the House will recognise is never; or an Allocation of Time Motion must be put forward; or—and no doubt this is the course which the Opposition would prefer —the Government could drop the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1962; Vol. 662, c. 977.]
Those words were spoken by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Have the right hon. Gentleman's researches gone so far as to show how many money Bills have been subject to the Guillotine and whether any money Bill has been guillotined before the Committee stage?

Mr. Bowden: Four Money Bills have been subject to the Guillotine in the present century. I do not know what happened in the last century. My researches have not gone so far as to show whether any have been guillotined before the Committee stage.
It is, in the Government's view, essential that the Selective Employment Payments Bill should receive the Royal Assent before the Summer Recess. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will make clear why. I know that the Opposition have no love for the Bill; but they should be clear about what the Bill does before they argue that its passage should be delayed. Provision was made in the Finance Bill for the Selective Employment Tax to be levied as from 5th September. As the House knows, provision is made in the Bill which we are discussing this afternoon for repayments to be made in certain cases. Whatever right hon. and hon. Members opposite may think about the policy at issue, I should have thought that it was common ground that repayments should begin as soon as could reasonably be arranged.
It is not only difficult, but almost impossible, for arrangements to be made so that repayments can begin until the final form of the Selective Employment Payments Bill, as it emerges after the Royal Assent, is clearly known. This is not to say that the Bill should not have full and careful consideration by the House. In the Government's view, the time available in this allocation of time Motion enables it to have such consideration.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Bill must go through all its stages in the House of Lords before their Lordships adjourn for the summer? Does he really contemplate that, if it is not a Money Bill?

Mr. Bowden: It is not for me to anticipate whether this is a money Bill. If it is certified as a Money Bill, the amount of time spent in the House of Lords will be very little indeed, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, and the Bill will get the Royal Assent very quickly. If it is not certified as a Money Bill it will take much longer and repayments may accordingly be delayed.
It would be contrary to the public interest that the Bill should be delayed

in Committee, or, as has been suggested, deferred until the autumn under that is absolutely necessary. Those local authorities, industries and individuals who have to wait as a result much longer before receiving their repayments would not thank the House, or right hon. Members opposite, for that.
I felt some diffidence about moving this Motion, because I did it in the presence of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, who was rightly called by The Times some time ago the Robespierre of debate because of his love for the guillotine. No Member has greater experience of moving allocation of time Motions, having moved three in one year. It will ill become him to express surprise or horror that the Government have decided that they must get their essential business through.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Iain Macleod.

Captain Walter Elliot: On a point of order. In moving the Motion, the Leader of the House referred to a concentration on selected important points so that the legislation should be passed quickly. As a humble back-bench Member, I am not aware who selects the so-called important points which should be passed quickly, but I, and no doubt many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, have had many points put to me by constituents and others which I, and no doubt other hon. Members, think of great importance.
If we catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate, shall we be in order in raising these points to rebut what seems to me insufferable arrogance on the part of the Leader of the House in stating that the points which he chooses are the important points?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member has been in Parliament long enough to know that the Leader of the House does not choose what any other hon. Member says in his speech. If, when he catches my eye, the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) makes remarks which are in order, he will be allowed to continue to make them. If they are out of order I shall stop him.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: It is true that I have moved guillotine


Motions on three occasions in the House of Commons although I have never moved one in such deplorable taste as that which the Leader of the House has moved this afternoon.
I hope that I shall not be thought unduly eccentric if I take from this Box today exactly the same view as I took from the Government Box. I can agree with the first sentences—and the first sentences only—of what the Leader of the House said. Indeed—and I am quoting from the guillotine Motion which I moved on the Commonwealth Immigrants and Army Reserve Bills on 25th January, 1962-I said:
…it is more than fifty years ago now since Mr. Asquith said that he had 'slowly and reluctantly come to the conclusion that you cannot carry on legislation here on large and complicated subjects without treating a timetable as part of our established procedure'".
That is true and nobody for a moment would deny it. But I made another quotation, reported in the same column of HANSARD, which is of great importance and which I think we ought to have in our minds. As I directed the attention of the House to this point as Leader of the House, perhaps I should do it when I speak for the Opposition on this subject. I said that the House was always jealous and critical of these Motions because—and I went on to quote these words from Erskine May—they
 are the extreme limit to which procedure goes in affirming the rights of the majority at the expense of the minorities of the House, and it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance, generally so carefully preserved, between the claims of business and the rights of debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January 1962; Vol. 652, c. 416–17.]
It is exactly that point which we discuss in this and in every time-table Motion which comes before the House. In one sense at least I would go even further than the Leader of the House went in his first few sentences. I have said this before when Leader of the House: I believe that one day, on great and contentious Measures—which this is—the time may well come when, on the Bill as it comes before the House, there will be a timetable, which, I hope, would be agreed between the two sides of the House. That is a long way in the future and, obviously, we have not got there at present, but when I was a member of the Conservative Government I looked forward to it

and I see no reason why I should not re-echo those words in opposition.
The general matter is not in dispute between us. No Leader of the House has to argue that there may be occasions on which a Guillotine is justified. What he always has to argue is that the particular Motion before the House is justified, and to that I address myself.
In my submission, there is one reason and one reason only for putting before the House the Guillotine, which is, as I have shown from Erskine May, the extreme case of forcing the will of the majority upon the minorities—there may well be more than one—in the House. The only justification is that of time. The Leader of the House must prove his case, as I shall attack it, on the ground of time. Let us see—it is quite easy to do this—what is the difference in time between us.
First, may I remind the Leader of the House that he again repeated some gossip from The Times of a few days ago. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition put him right last Thursday and I do so again. We have never thought for a moment that it was conceivable that three days would satisfy us on this Bill. That has been the Government's thinking and somewhere along the line that quotation has become confused.
I have been quoted as saying something like 10 days, and I shall show in a moment how that can be reduced by late-night sittings—and nobody can say that I am unused to these or unwilling to put up with them. Hon. Members will find that what I said was closely in accordance with what we have put on the Order Paper.
Let us analyse the time. The Government are prepared to spend a Guillotine day today, three days in Committee and one day on Report and Third Reading, making a total of five days in the House of Commons. I am leaving aside for the moment the question of Lords Amendments. I want to come separately to the question whether this is a money Bill and what would happen if it were. The Government are prepared to give five days for the ordinary procedures in the House of Commons.
In the Amendments which you, Mr. Speaker, have said you will call, and


which we shall be discussing later tonight or tomorrow morning, we have put down eight days plus two days for consideration plus one day for Third Reading, making a total of 11. This is the difference between us—five days the Government say they can find and 11 days we say we need. These six days can easily be reduced to, say, three or four. It needs perhaps only one very long or two moderately long late-night sittings to do that.
We are, therefore, arguing about three or four ordinary sitting days of the House of Commons—the inside of one Parliamentary week at a time when, in a few days, we are about to rise for a break which is normally—it may well be exceptional this year—10 or 11 weeks.
Let us look for a moment to the Guillotine about which I spoke—that on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill. On that occasion the Guillotine was not introduced until we had already had three days in Committee. Many Members—especially the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman)—will remember the debate very well indeed. The hon. Member will know that his party at least has changed its mind a great deal on the subject since we debated that Motion; they will remember, perhaps some of the things they said to us then and some of the things they have done since.
That was a shorter Bill, a Bill less sweeping in its implications, although it was a Bill of the first importance, but on that Bill there were three days in Committee and then the guillotine Motion day—four days; three further days in Committee, and two days for Report and Third Reading, a total of nine. In other words, a debate different from that offered by the Government now and close to, not obviously dissimilar from, the offers we have put on the Order Paper. And Clause 1 had been completed. There were 170 Amendments on the Notice Paper. Now there are 350, more than twice as many; and yet we thought, nine days for 170 Amendments, and for 350 the Government suggest five.
Moreover, we knew then—and, as I say, they thought it honourable at the time, and I am not criticising this; I

know how deeply passions raged then—that they were determined that we should not get that Bill if they could possibly stop us. That was the attitude they took up, and we knew after three days in Committee that within the limits of Parliamentary debate obstruction was there. In this case, of course, we have not even started in Committee on the Bill.
I said in that debate, and this is the last reference I shall make to it:
 It is abundantly clear from the record and the progress of these Bills that they cannot hope to become law within a reasonable period of time. The choice before the Government is. in my view, absolutely clear and inescapable. Either we drop the Bills or we ask Parliament for the powers for which I ask today."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1962; Vol 652, c. 427.]
If that were the case, if there were no other alternative before the Government except either to drop the Bill or to ask for Guillotine powers—although, of course, in opposition I would always oppose it—I certainly would, frankly, think it would be right to ask for Guillotine powers, but I have already shown, and I intend to go on to show in a little more detail, that time, here, cannot be the answer which the Government should put before this House; and yet this is not only the most it is the only reason, the only tolerable reason, for the extreme infringement of what Erskine May refers to as the rights of minorities in the House.
The Leader of the House says to us that the Government have allocated the time on expert advice. Whose? With respect, whose? Whose expert advice? Who is it who decides what time this honourable House shall allot—as between banking and financing—shall we say?—on one side, and the case of laundries and the Mrs. Mopps on the other? What genius is it who holds these particular scales? Or the scales between Scotland and china clay, or between bakehouses and development areas? [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Northfield laughs. I am sure he does. There is not a constituency in the country which is not deeply affected by this Measure. There is not an industry, not a trade, not a service in any constituency which is not affected by the Measure which is being guillotined by the House today; and the Leader of the House says that he has had expert advice. If we are to have a


reply later to this debate I hope that we shall have a little more detail about exactly whose advice it was that led the Government to put this particular Motion on the Order Paper.
These refunds do not start till February, 1967, at the earliest. Why, then, should they become law in the first half of August? Why should they? When they took this decision the Government knew perfectly well that from his side of the House—I am not just saying this as a point to make on Thursday afternoon at business question time—we had proposed that we would sit in August or in September, or that we would come back earlier than we usually do from the October conferences so that we could finish the Bill. What we are asking for—let us have it in our minds all the time—is the inside of one Parliamentary week. That is all that is wanted, and that is the whole of the difference between us.
There is not the slightest need for the Bill to become law before we rise for the Summer Recess. True, it would be convenient for people to know as soon as possible, but they could know by the third week in August if we sat till then; or they could know in September, or they could know at the latest by early October; and that is plenty of time for the Ministry of Labour, whose Parliamentary Secretary is here—the whole House is sad indeed that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister cannot be here—to discuss this with us. But there is no need for the Ministry of Labour to have these powers as early as the second week in August.
Three or four Parliamentary days are what we are asking for. Yet what is to happen over some of these days? We are to have the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill. We could use that, could we not, for this measure? We are to have the Second Reading of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Bill. We could use that, could we not, for this Measure? We have already had the Second Reading of the Prices and Incomes Bill. We could have used that very well for this Measure. There alone are the clays which we require.
I know, of course, that the Government want these rather tattered flags of steel and the rest to wave at their party conference. Of course they do. That is the

reason for this Motion, but they will pay a fairly heavy price for using Parliamentary time in this way. If I may just make one very short quotation on this from a Socialist economist who used to write for me when I was editor of the Spectator, and whom I admire very much as a person although I disagree almost entirely with his economic views, I will quote what he wrote last week in the Spectator about the compensation terms:
 It will, I am afraid, be regarded as a chisel, not only at home, but abroad—and British government credit will fall in consequence.
It has done, has it not? And yet we are to discuss Measures like those that we are being forbidden the opportunity of having anything like a reasonable discussion of the Measure which is now before the House.
There is only one other Measure which I think is comparable, though infinitely smaller in its effect than the Measure which is in front of us now, and that is what was called the "pots and pans Finance Bill" in the autumn of 1955. That is the nearest analogy since the war to the Selective Employment Payments Bill, although, of course, it was much more limited in scope. It brought a number of items within Purchase Tax, but it did not correspond to bringing the whole range of services under tax as this Measure does. Yet on that occasion we spent six full days and one whole night in Committee—15th, 16th, 22nd, 23rd, 28th and 29th November, 1955. Why cannot we have at least as much for this vastly more important Measure?
I then come to the question over which the right hon. Gentleman skated. Is this a money Bill? He said that it is not for him to decide. That is not quite what he told the House on 12th May, 1966, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst), who had asked about the effect of having two Bills. This was the answer of the Leader of the House, and I hope that he will reply personally to the point at the end of our discussion, because he is involved in the advice that he gave. He said:
 I do not think that there is anything valid in that point. I would only add that there is a further point with regard to the division of the two Bills. I hope that it is appreciated that if we have the repayments under the second Bill, the Ministry of Labour Bill, it


gives another place the opportunity of discussing them. I would regard it as unfortunate if it did not have that opportunity."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1966; Vol. 728, c. 599.]
So there we have it from the Leader of the House. There are no "ifs" and "buts" in that statement. It is absolutely clear and specific, and I imagine that he made it, as he does on a Thursday, with full advice in advance. It follows that the view of the Leader of the House is not only that this is not a money Bill, but it is one which is appropriate to be discussed and should be discussed by another place.
We should ask ourselves for a moment what happens then. Clearly, there will be a special duty on another place to discuss matters which, for whatever reason, we in this House have left undiscussed. I would not have thought that anyone who follows constitutional and political history could dissent from that observation—even the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).
What will happen then? The Leader of the House says, "In that case, we will not get the Bill in time for the House to rise in the ordinary way for the Summer Recess." But, as soon as he says that, he concedes the whole case to us. That is exactly what we say. If we sit one more week, the whole problem does not arise.
It is true, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will remember saying in the Third Reading of the Finance Bill last year, that any Opposition can wreck any Finance Bill if they want to. There are Clauses which one could discuss and there are Schedules which one could discuss. One does not, and one would not, and that is true of this Measure.
If the Leader of the House was right in his pledge—and I do not use the word in the sense of giving us a promise; but he gave us his clear understanding of the position—it is inevitable that there should be discussion in Parliament going beyond the ordinary time in August when we rise, and I am thinking for the moment of the two Houses together. If that is so, why should not the more important of the two House have that time for discussion of this Measure? That, again, is what we are asking for.
The right hon. Gentleman was asked about precedents for guillotining Finance Bills. He replied that there are four this century, though he was very careful not

to give the dates. However, I think that I am right in saying that the last one was in 1931. There has been no guillotining of a Money Bill for 35 years. So we are in the position that, if this is not a Money Bill, it will be discussed in Parliament well into August, and we might as well do the discussion if we regard ourselves as the senior House in these matters. If it is a Money Bill, there are no precedents for 35 years for applying this sort of Guillotine to this sort of Measure.
In either case, the arguments which the Leader of the House puts before us become intolerable. Again, last Thursday, he said:
 I am not accusing the Opposition of deliberate obstruction ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1966; Vol. 731, c. 1722–3.]
I should think not. We have not started the Committee stage of the Bill, and it is only when people know that there is great opposition, as they knew, for example, on the issue of transport nationalisation, that both sides of the House put on a Guillotine in advance of the Committee stage. They knew in advance that the whole Bill was utterly repugnant to the philosophy of the party on the other side.
This is a very different Measure. In two instances, first, in 1961, actually in the Finance Bill, and, secondly, in our election manifesto this year, we put forward the idea of a payroll tax so that it should be easier for us to link ourselves eventually to the Community in Europe. There is not the gulf that divides us and always has divided us on great nationalisation issues.
I want to deal for a moment with the point which was raised during business questions last Thursday by the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig), who I see in his place. He asked if it was not true that, if we took this by 3.35 p.m., as it were on the nod, we could discuss the Committee stage of the Bill. I suppose that that is true. If we took on the nod what we regard as an intolerable and arbitrary interference without protest, we could have less than a day's discussion, because there is no Motion on the Order Paper for the Committee stage of the Bill, apart from the allocation of time Motion for extending the time. So that we could discuss it whenever the House wanted to stop it from ending until 10 o'clock.
That is a very poor point, if I may say so, and I am glad that the Leader of the House did not bother to put it forward in his speech. Neither would I have done. Leaders of the House always put it on the Order Paper, but they know that it is no more than a gesture. We rather hope that we shall be able to continue for some time beyond 10 o'clock. discussing the guillotine Motion which is in front of us and the Amendments which you have said you will call. Mr. Speaker.
I return to the question of time, because it is at the heart of everything. Whoever these mysteriously experts may be, the time allotted by the Government to this Measure is ludicrous. To take Clause.2 as an example, there are 127 Amendments to it. As I have said, every trade and business and every constituency is affected. There can be grouping, of course, and that is a matter for the Chair. But seven hours are allotted by the Government for the Clause and, with 127 Amendments, that means a little under three minutes each. It takes 10 minutes to divide the House on any matter on which one feels strongly against the Government. So that it is simply not possible for an Opposition to operate as we would wish to do, searchingly and well, but not at length, within the limits of this Guillotine.
I think that I have proved that time is not the real reason why the Government have brought this to the Order Paper. Over these past few weeks, they have choked the House of Commons with financial and other business so that we cannot digest what is in front of us now. Whether the second is declared to be a money Bill or not, we have two Finance Bills to deal with this year, even though the Budget was a month later than usual.
The sadness of skimping some of the points in this Bill is something which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will know very well. She knows that her chief could scarcely get the words between his teeth as he moved the Second reading of the Bill. She must know that he loathes the Bill, and I have enough regard for her to be fairly confident that she loathes it as well. It is no business of the Ministry of Labour to concern itself with matters like this which will adversely affect the disabled, the part-

time and the elderly. It is against everything that it has stood for, and I cannot understand why the hon. Lady has lent herself to this manoeuvre, because her name appears in support of the guillotine Motion.
The real reason is quite simple—a storm is coming in the Chiltern Hills, and the Government are running before that storm. They want to reach the harbour of the Summer Recess as quickly as they can, the want to stay in it as long as they possibly can, so they want to deny the House the opportunity that we have adequately to discuss the Bill. In an incautious moment last Thursday the Leader of the House gave the game away. He said:
…I would like to be able to offer the House, particularly those hon. Members who have children and who want to get away for the Recess, some firm dates, but I cannot possibly do so at the moment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1966; Vol. 731, c. 1732]
So would I like to get away. I, too, would like a holiday.
I think that the House will recognise that I have put in more hours at this Box than any other Member during the last few months, but I am more than ready to stay for this Bill, in August, or in September, or in October, whenever it may be, because—I know that the merits of the Bill can only be referred to in passing—these proposals by the Chancellor, or whoever else it was, have been riddled ever since Budget day.
Ever since then feeling against the Selective Employment Tax has been building up all over the country, and unless these matters are fully discussed —and I have shown that it is impossible to do that under the allocation of time that we have—there will be no answer available to all the problems which the Bill will pose to industry.
Let me illustrate that with one or two examples. Who knows what is an establishment, or what a premise is, or what access is, or what a unit is? All these terms have been used, and unless we can spell these out in debate—I assure the House, not out of any desire to obstruct —the Government are heading for a disastrous mess as the Bill begins to operate. The Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head. With his experience of last year's Finance Bill, he ought to know that first drafts are not


necessarily the best and that they have frequently to be amended by the free play of and discussion in this honourable House.
In the circumstances which I have outlined, I submit that it is intolerable that the Leader of the House should tell us —and this is what he said last Thursday—that time is up, that only a few days are left, and we should go away and play. It is because we believe that the Bill is one to which the House can and ought to devote its full attention for the number of days that we suggest in our four Amendments that we shall resist this Motion with all our strength.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: Having listened to similar speeches on many occasions, I was wondering what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) would offer by way of argument on what is a very difficult Motion to debate. By the rules of the House we are limited to the Motion itself, and I imagine that if the hon. Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot), who raised a point of order with Mr. Speaker, were to debate what he wants to debate, namely, the merits of the different Amendments, or his point of view of certain aspects of the Bill, he would be out of order, and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman had to rely on Erskine May.

Captain W. Elliot: The right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that I might be out of order in debating points which have been put to me. That is not quite what I put in my point of order. In his speech the Leader of the House suggested that the Motion enabled the House to concentrate on selected points. My point is that it is a matter of opinion which points are important.

Mr. Bellenger: I follow that, but I think I can imagine the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of important points, and, having heard Mr. Speaker's reply, I came to the conclusion that if the hon. Gentleman debated at any length the points which he had in mind he would be out of order. However, I am not in conflict with the Chair, although I suggest that the hon. and gallant Gentleman may be later.
Perhaps I might come back to what I was saying about the right hon. Member for Enfield, West having to rely on Erskine May. We all know that Erskine May is a profound authority on the rules of debate in this House, but he wrote at a time far removed from the times in which we live. The right hon. Gentleman admitted by implication that there was a case for some sort of Guillotine, imposed in some sort of way—I gather through the usual channels.
If the right hon. Gentleman casts his mind back to the origin of the Guillotine, he will realise only too well why it was introduced into our procedure. It was brought in because in those days a minority did its best to obstruct the House, and the authorities realised that if the Government were to be supreme, and were to get their business through, they must limit that obstruction by rules which would prevent some of the methods which were being used by the minority for a different purpose.
If the right hon. Gentleman's main point is that there should be adequacy of debate, I am with him. So long as Parliament is able adequately to debate the issues that come before it, and especially taxation issues, I think that the purpose is served, but it has to be served in a way which does not lead to the possibility of the Government being obstructed in an important matter such as taxation.
The situation today is not like that in the last Parliament, when the Government had a majority of three. The country has clearly expressed the view that it is this Government that it wants. The country may not have expressed a point of view on different aspects of taxation, but it has expressed confidence in the Government. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but the only way to unseat the Government is to win by-elections. It may be said that one by-election has just taken place, but hon. Gentlemen opposite must do far better than that if they are to show that the country has lost the confidence which it had in the Government a few months ago, when we won the General Election.
I suggest that Erskine May is very much out of date, and that this has been recognised by various Select Committees of the House which have attempted to alter our procedure. There


are some aspects of the Selective Employment Tax which I do not like. I, too, have had representations about its effects. I wish that we had dealt with this matter in the Finance Bill, because that is the proper place for it. Nevertheless, for adequate reasons, the Government have introduced a new Bill for which the Minister of Labour is responsible, and we are in a somewhat anomalous position in that this Bill is, as it were, running parallel with the Finance. Bill. I can, therefore, understand that we have to get this Bill out of the way before we can agree to the Third Reading of the Finance Bill.
It is one thing for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that they want more time in which to debate the Selective Employment Tax—a legitimate request—but the right hon. Member for Enfield, West knows from his years of membership of the House and the various Committee stages of Finance Acts—and I have been a Member through the passage of more than 30 Finance Acts—that without transgressing the rules of order there is often considerable repetition amounting, in effect, to obstruction. The right hon. Gentleman gave a clue when he indicated that he and his hon. Friends will oppose the whole principle of this tax to the utmost limit.

Mr. Lain Macleod: I said that we would oppose the guillotine Motion to the full extent of our strength. I also pointed out that in another context, relating to poll taxes and variants of them, my hon. Friends and I have been responsible for suggesting them.

Mr. Bellenger: Nevertheless, I have the suspicion, even if the right hon. Gentleman did not dot the i's and cross the t's, that the Opposition wish to use their legitimate powers under the Standing Orders of the House to oppose S.E.T.
At any rate, what is the difference in the end? If the Opposition accept the principle, then we return to the question of there being time for adequate debate. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Opposition wanted four more days for this debate, presumably at reasonable hours and without the need to sit throughout the night. He therefore admitted that that would be sufficient time to discuss, if called, each of the several hundred Amendments which the

Opposition have tabled. We know from previous experience that that is really not the purpose.
The right hon. Gentleman said that about three minutes would be available for each Amendment. I suggest that three minutes is adequate for some Amendments, remembering that there are certain matters which many hon. Members would like to raise if there were time. We must recognise, however—especially in view of the present economic situation—that priorities must apply, even to the amount of time available for debate.
Considering the amount of invective the Leader of the Opposition uses against my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, one would have thought that the Opposition would be more concerned to have the main debate on the further measures which my right hon. Friend will announce on Wednesday. Does not the Leader of the Opposition wish to allow himself and his hon. Friends time in which to debate some of those measures, which, I suspect, will be much more serious in their purpose than S.E.T.?
Apart from the Opposition wishing my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to allow more time to debate S.E.T., hon. Gentlemen opposite must be aware that the Government must get their taxation business through in time. Leaving aside the question whether the House rises for the Summer Recess at the beginning or in the middle of August, hon. Gentlemen opposite must also remember that the Government have a sufficient majority to get their Measures through without steamrolling the Opposition. Hon. Gentlemen opposite equally know that it is not necessary extensively to debate each and every Amendment they have so far tabled, many of them involving principles which could be argued on the various Clauses stand part.
Having said that, and considering the terms of the speech of the right hon. Member for Enfield West, I am bound to reflect on the propaganda aspect of his speech—that is, if we are to believe what we read in the Press about people demanding more militancy from the Opposition Front Bench. Whether or not that is so, I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite realise that all these matters,


particularly the financial ones, must be taken extremely seriously.
Any hon. Member who has read his political history will know that in times more stormy than these, in times when greater principles have been involved, it has been common form for the Opposition to try to beat down the Government of the day, particularly when debating taxation policy. However, the Opposition will not succeed on this occasion. All the exhortation on the part of people outside for the Opposition to be more militant has not so far achieved anything from the present Opposition. That is true. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West has been editor of a periodical which he evidently still reads. He knows only too well of the castigation which the Leaders of his party have received from respectable publications, perhaps even from the Spectator. He knows that far better arguments than those so far adduced must be advanced in the House on this Motion before he and his hon. Friends will achieve success. The vehemence displayed by the right hon. Gentleman so far is not an adequate way of debating these matters.

4.57 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) put forward two new propositions, both of which, I should have thought, were unattractive and untenable. The first is that Erskine May is out of date because Erskine May died a long time ago. If the right hon. Gentleman is to apply that doctrine to all our accepted authorities in the sphere of law, we will get into a very difficult position indeed.
All the original learned authors of text books that may be cited in our courts of law are dead. One may not cite them unless they are. But it does not mean that the works are out of date because competent contemporary editors produce new editions ever reflecting the up-to-date position and the movement of modern ideas.

Mr. Bellenger: Mr. Bellenger rose—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish to withdraw his attack on Erskine May?

Mr. Bellenger: I take issue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, not on any matter of law—he is much more learned than I am in that respect—but to ask him if it is not a fact that, in spite of the authorities now dead, modern law in Britain is based mainly on case law?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: It is a mixture of case law and statute law. Case law, which is evolved by the wisdom of the judges, is nearly always good. Statute law is good sometimes, when it is the product of a Conservative Government, but less good when it is the product of the Administration which the right hon. Gentleman supports. However, I must not spend too much time on the heresies of the right hon. Gentleman. He has been long enough in the House to be allowed the luxury of an occasional heresy, but two in one speech is going too far.
The right hon. Gentleman's second proposition was almost graver—the proposition that because a Government have a working majority, or perhaps even a substantial majority, they therefore have a built-in right to curtail Parliamentary discussion. That is not only a novel doctrine, but a dangerous and totally unacceptable one. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reflect, in the watches of the night—and he will have abundant opportunity to do so without moving far from where he is at present sitting—and will repent on those two propositions.
I would certainly agree with what was said both by the Leader of the House and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) about our attitude to the Guillotine in general. Of course, no one in this year 1966 can say that the use of the Guillotine is never justified. Mr. Asquith put it very well in the words we have heard from my right hon. Friend, and that was some time ago. There are abundant precedents on both sides of the House for its use.
In certain circumstances, therefore, we must concede that the use of the Guillotine is justified. It would, however, be very wrong to proceed from there and say that the use of the Guillotine can ever be justified save as an exceptional


measure, because it is the ultimate limitation on the rights of Parliamentary discussion, and inevitably arbitrary and unselective in its operation. It is, therefore, right that in each case the onus should be fairly and squarely on the Government seeking to use the Guillotine to establish on the facts and circumstances of a particular case that its use is appropriate as an exceptional measure within the principles that should govern these things.
We do not have any set of principles formulated in writing for the application of the Guillotine, but I would suggest that they are clearly to be deduced and that they are really enshrined in three tests. The first is: is it necessary as a remedy for obstruction? The second: does it arise from imperative difficulties in the Government's timetable which the Government could not reasonably avoid? The third: are there some special considerations arising in the context and circumstances of the particular Measure? I submit that those are the principles by which the House has to judge any proposal to, take from it its fundamental right and duty of Parliamentary scrutiny and discussion, and that, on analysis, this Bill fails on each and all of those tests.
I put obstruction first, because it is the primary—and some would say the indispensable—element in a justification for the Guillotine. The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw referred to the origins of the Guillotine-80 years ago in the context of the Irish obstruction; but that was obstruction of a sort not paralleled in the House in later times. It was not obstruction in the sense that we understand it today—merely the imposing of delay on a single Government Measure. It was obstruction so comprehmsive, so organised, so determined and so unremitting, as was designed to arrest the whole conduct of Government business until the policy of Home Rule was imposed on the Government. That is the origin of the Guillotine.
That being so, I would submit that, even today, obstruction must be so intense, so organised, so effective, as to defeat all the normal safeguards against obstruction. And there are safeguards. The Leader of the House referred to one of them, but there are at least three safeguarding Standing Orders. Standing

Order No. 22 deals with irrelevance and repetition; No. 31—the Chief Secretary shakes his head, but we have the three Standing Orders; 22, 31 and 33. They are provided to guard against repetition and irrelevance; to give the right of the Closure in proper circumstances, and to give the Chair the right of selection of Amendments. It is only when, in a particular case, the capacity of the Chair, properly exercised, cannot, by the use of those Standing Orders, prevent obstruction that the Guillotine has any right even to come on the horizon.
In this case, there is no obstruction. How can there be? The Committee stage has not yet started. Erskine May says that an "Allocation of Time order" is often not moved
…until the rate of progress in committee has provided argument for its necessity.
Here, there is no Committee stage; no argument for the necessity; no obstruction; no reasonable apprehension of obstruction. There is no case at all. The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw points to my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West, but my right hon. Friend made quite clear the distinction between this and, for example, a nationalisation Measure. He said that on nationalisation Measures the positions were such, were so fixed, as to be able to give a reasonable apprehension that there could be obstruction. That cannot conceivably apply to this Measure, which is a new Measure in which the House has not taken up a previously fixed position as on nationalisation.
I suggest that the second consideration is difficulty about time. My right hon. Friend has dealt extensively with this consideration, but it would be a remarkable thing if the Government could make out their case under this head. We are in the first Session of a Parliament, a Session nearly 50 per cent. longer than an average Session. Clearly, any Government are under a duty to manage their business so as not to curtail the legitimate rights of Parliament; to cut their legislative coat according to the Parliamentary cloth. There is, of course, a temptation for a Government to use the Guillotine to get through more legislation than they ought, and it is a temptation to which Labour Governments are perhaps particularly susceptible.
A Labour Government changed the procedure in 1947 with the avowed intent of making the Guillotine a more accepted and general concomitant of our Parliamentary business. What was the result? They forced on to the Statute Book a vast mass of hastily drafted, undigested legislation, so guillotined that great parts of those Measures reached the Statute Book without detailed discussion either in Committee or on Report, with the necessity that they have had to be subjected to very extensive amendment since. That is what happens when a Government seeks to use the power of the Guillotine to deny to Parliament the right of scrutiny.
There is here no rigid framework for the timetable which could justify this action. It might have been different if it were in the context of the financial cycle because, as the House knows, financial Measures have to be on the Statute Book by, I think, 5th August. That does not apply to this Bill. It is not to come into operation until February. The Government having, for their own reasons, decided that it is possible to get the machinery for tax collection into operation by September but to defer the payment of premiums until February, they have obviously put themselves right out of court for any argument on the score of urgency in this matter. It may be that, for reasons I can understand, August is inconvenient—so what? It could be done in late September or early October, and still leave plenty of time without giving rise to any administrative difficulties.
I submit, therefore, that there is nothing in the timetable to justify the Guillotine in this case, no consideration of time—unless it be matters that will impinge on the timetable by reason of the economic crisis which the Government have promoted. But that is not a proper reason for denying the House its fundamental rights.
I come to the third aspect—the content and circumstances of the Bill. It cannot be said that the content of this Bill is one that justifies this procedure. It cannot be said that this is a matter in which the general principle has been well canvassed over the years and the details are unimportant. Just the contrary is the case. As the House knows, this is a

Bill concerned with putting concerns into three categories—the fortunate, the less fortunate, and the very unfortunate, all dependent on fine distinctions and nice calculation. Therefore, it is necessary to frame the Bill so that the circumstances are given proper weight, not approached on a rule-of-thumb or hit-or-miss basis.
My right hon. Friend referred to some of the difficulties which arise in these matters. We know the difficulties which arise when we seek to put concerns and commercial and industrial undertakings into categories. We know of this in town planning, we know it in rating and in all these matters. The Government are using the Bill in a rule-of-thumb way when they try to cut out discussion and improvement as it goes along. The Amendments to which reference has been made cover a wide and varied range of national activity, but they are all individual cases, individual cases with their own idiosyncratic features and demanding their own individual discussion. If they do not get this, it is not a Bill; it is a lottery.
What consolation, for example, is there for the film studios if the case of the confectioners is argued and theirs is not? What consolation is there for the milk bottlers—if I may take the Amendment put forward by Co-operative Society hon. Members on these matters —if the case for the management consultant, is argued and theirs is not? What would we think if in the courts a plaintiff were told by a judge, "I do not propose to hear your case for damages for negligence for personal injuries in your factory. No, I have spent a long time hearing another action for damages for negligence in a motor collision case. It is all the same and I have other matters to consider. I have a crowded list and we must go forward. You must be content with justice which has already been done."
Whether this be a money Bill or not, the content of it is such that it cries out for proper Parliamentary scrutiny and discussion. We do not know, as the Leader of the House said, whether this fits into the definition of a money Bill under the Parliamentary Act or not. It is not for us to say. It is for Mr. Speaker to certify before it goes to another place. I say that it is not for us to say, but in fact the Government have said. The


only difficulty is that they have said it with two conflicting voices. What the Leader of the House said in May as quoted by my right hon. Friend had the irresistible implication that this is not a money Bill, but what the Minister of Labour said in June on the Second reading was:
Quite clearly, the Bill is primarily a financial Measure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June. 1966; Vol. 730. c. 932.]
If it be a money Bill, of course on the right hon. Gentleman's own confession he is doing something for which there is no precedent in modern times. We would have to go a long way back into Erskine May, with the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw, to find a precedent.
What about the circumstances attending the Bill? There is nothing in the degree or quality of preparation of this Bill to negative the need for Parliamentary scrutiny. Of course there is not. This is the Bill which should have had full factual, statistical information since it is based on the rule-of-thumb application of the standard industrial classification evolved for another purpose. Has it had it? We know it has not had it because, fortunately, the right hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) has raised the veil and afforded to the House a fascinating glimpse of how these matters work under this Administration.
This is what he said on Thursday last:
Another mistake we have made is that we have done too much guesswork. We talk rather loosely about productivity and production; but there are no figures.
He went on to say:
If this is so, we must recognise that when you make declarations without them there is a possibility that you will be wrong.
More than a possibility here, a very strong probablity indeed.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to make some candid avowals of the conduct of Government policy. He said:
I suggest that the policy we have followed during the past two years has not done even what we are now saying it has done. It has not protected the lower-paid, it has not given them a new era to look forward to, it has been unselective in its responses, it has picked people out and they have been picked out on all sorts of queer criteria," [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1966; Vol. 731, c. 1790 and 1793]
There is this Bill defined for us in advance by the right hon. Gentleman who was

at that time a Member of the Administration.
Of course, the right hon. Gentleman said about the Prices and Incomes Bill that he was told not to worry about it, that everyone knows it will not work. That was what they were telling him in the inner councils about the Prices and Incomes Bill. Heaven alone knows what they must have said about this Bill. I think that the most probable and most charitable explanation is that the Government have entered upon the Bill in total unawareness both of what they were seeking to do and of what was likely to be its effect. It was said in the First World War, of a Measure brought forward by Mr. Lloyd George's Government, "Only God and the War Cabinet knew what this was supposed to mean and now only God knows." The Government are in a worse case. At least, Mr. Lloyd George's Government originally knew what it was supposed to mean, but this Government are denied even that knowledge.
This lack of preparation, of information, of understanding reinforces the case against the Guillotine which fails on every count as I see it. The Government may feel that they have a duty to their programme and their timetable, but they have a higher duty. They have a duty as law makers. They have a duty to see that the measures that they put on to the Statute book are as free from error of form or substance as parliamentary consideration can make them.
Over 400 Amendments to the Finance Bill, 1965, were proposed by the Government presumably because they thought that those Amendments made it a better Bill. Why are they denying a similar opportunity to make this a better Bill? In so denying they are in breach of their duty to the nation and to the House, which, by its vote, should restrain them from their declared intention.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I come as a traditionalist to take part in this debate. I must be one of the very few hon. Members on either side of the House who would be happy if the House collectively had the power to stop the Executive on certain occasions. I am one of the few who would like the House to be able to say,


like the American Congress, "Thus far and no farther until we have scrutinised."
Hon. Members may not believe me, but I came to this debate interested in what the spokesman for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) would say. I wanted to be convinced, but what he did—I followed his arithmetic, because I had done it myself before—was to point out that we are no longer in the position in which the House collectively, or the Opposition, can stop the Government. The Government will get its way on this Measure, as we all know. The issue then becomes whether the Bill will be discussed for five or 11 days.
What I wanted to be convinced of, and what I thought the right hon. Gentleman should have tried to convince us of, was that this Measure would be a better one if it were discussed for 11 rather than five days. I regard arguments about days being used for other Bills, for the Iron and Steel Bill and so forth, as party histrionics. We would all like debates on things which could be discussed over several Sessions, but the question is: will this Bill be better if it gets an extra four days' or four nights' discussion which the right hon. Gentleman wants it to have?
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) did a service to teachers of British history who carry on as if what happens on the Floor of the House is of tremendous importance—the Whig theory of history. If the right hon. Gentleman was correct in saying that things are discussed only if they are discussed here. then, clearly, the longer the better.
As we all know, for two and a half months interests have been battering away at the Chancellor of the Exchequer and at the Cabinet. Deputations have been received. I have tabled an Amendment. This is the tip of the iceberg. We have written letters to The Times. We have sent in petitions. So, if the Motion is carried, the result will not be that the matter will be discussed here for only four or five days. That discussion will be only the culmination of a very long process.
If the cases of interests which have failed—after all, the cases of interests which had succeeded will not be advanced

—were advanced for 11 days rather than for five days, would the Bill be made significantly better? I doubt it. I cannot see that this would be so. During the short period that I have been a Member of the House, the most effective occasions have been when the debates have been short and crisp, and speeches have been to the point. I came here this afternoon expecting to find a House seething with indignation at the restrictions imposed on it. I have come into the House two or three times, and there have been barely 50 Members here., one of whom was asleep.

Hon. Members: How many Government back benchers are there?

Mr. Mackintosh: I should like to see indignation on both sides. I have found, especially in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, a routine set of jokes about the Government and routine ripostes from this side of the House.
We shall not produce a better Bill if we have these extra days, because I cannot think that the Minister concerned does not know the arguments by now.

Mr. Peter Walker: If it is valid to argue that, because the case has been put privately to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and in the newspapers, time is not needed in Parliament to discuss the Bill, why have any days to discuss it?

Mr. Mackintosh: This is a good point. We must discuss these things; but do we do any better by repeating arguments in 11 days when they could be made succinctly in five days? I ask hon. Members to think of the prestige of the House. Did it do the reputation of the House any good to sit for the number of hours we did on the Finance Bill, or could we not have put all those points crisply more succinctly for the Press, and with more public effect in half the time?

Mr. Peter Walker: Last year the House was occupied for many days on the Finance Bill. At the end of that time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who himself had taken up a lot of that time on his own Amendments, thanked the Opposition for all of theirs. This year the Chancellor had to introduce Clause after Clause, resulting from arguments which we advanced on last year's Finance Bill.

Mr. Mackintosh: I take that point. Those of us who sat through the Bill knew before it began which Amendments were to be accepted and how it would go. [HON. MEMBERS "Really?"I Do hon. Members imagine that Members change their minds on the Floor of the House?

Mr. David Webster: Did the hon. Gentleman give this advice when lecturing on constitutional practice at the University of Ibadan, in Nigeria?

Mr. Mackintosh: No. I gave much better advice than this when I was lecturing in this country. I should be interested to know how often any senior Minister has accepted Amendments or changed Clauses as a result of decisions taken on the Front Bench. I know of only one recorded instance of this. I should be grateful to learn of more instances, if there are any, for future editions of my book. The only instance I know of is when Disraeli accepted a minor Amendment to the second Reform Bill in 1867 without consulting his colleagues on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Peter Walker: May I give the hon. Gentleman some help with his book? The Report stage of almost every Bill is taken up with Amendments agreed to by the Government as a result of the debates which have taken place in Committee.

Mr. Mackintosh: That is not my point. My point is that the agreement on these arguments is achieved privately after the arguments have been put and they are not decided here on the Floor of the House. My main point is that the changes which are made are the result of a continuous process of consultation. I have yet to receive any evidence that the changes would be more substantial or more effective if all-night type of discussion went on for 11 days as opposed to five days, which is the issue on which the Opposition are attacking the Government at the moment.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: May I give the hon. Gentleman an instance? The other day the Secretary of State for Defence decided that his policy was not to sell arms to America, unless they were not

to be used in Vietnam. He took this decision on the spur of the moment, while sitting on the Front Bench, under very heavy pressure from his own side.

Mr. Mackintosh: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have recorded that instance. It is a valuable one. It reinforces my point because this happened in a short, punchy exchange, in a confined time when the Minister was under pressure.
The debates on the Selective Employment Payments Bill will be better for being timetabled. They will be better for being short and concise. The interests will come quickly to a head; the points will be made quickly, the answers will be made quickly. I do not think that any critical issue of liberty is at stake, because we are to have a short, fairly swift debate.
The right hon. Member for Enfield, West said that there were 127 Amendments to Clause 2 and that the Guillotine allowed roughly three minutes each. I have studied these 127 Amendments. As far as I can see, they boil down to three major points which can be made fairly swiftly. They are arguments which have been canvassed in the Press. One of them is my point about regional development and the importance of varying the tax from region to sub-region. These points can be made quickly and effectively.
We already know that we have pressed behind the scenes. We shall get our answers. This makes for the best and most effective sort of argument. If we could hold up the Government permanently, it would be another matter. However, as we know that the final answer will be decided by the Government and carried through, this seems to be the method of debate which gives most prestige and most effect to the House.
In conclusion, I want to touch on the question of reforming our timetable of business. The Guillotine is one of the things which has brought up the whole question at this moment. I cannot see why we would not get a more effective timetable if we timetabled all major Bills and if this matter were handed to a small committee, composed of Members drawn


from both sides of the House, so that we knew what time we had.
I repeat that I cannot see that the House gains any prestige, or that Members of the House are really effective, from having dreary all-night sittings on Clause after Clause and from repeating point after point. We should get straight to the Selective Employment Tax question; we should ask our questions and make our points: and, if they are conceded, I think that the decision to concede is already in Ministers' minds. If we can influence them in the allotted time, so much the better. I want to see Parliament powerful and effective. The synthetic indignation expressed by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West about this curtailment has not moved me at all.

5.28 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) began by saying that he was astonished that there was not more indignation in the House about this proposal. I am sorry to see that the Leader of the House is leaving, because I want particularly to refer to his remarks. I want very rapidly to make good the deficiency noticed by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian, although I thought that the case advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) was a devastating one.
However devastating the case that can be made against a guillotine Motion may be coming from the Front Bench, it can never be quite so convincing as the one which can be made from the back benches. All Governments know the difficulty of getting their business. Anyone who ever expects to be on the Front Bench, particularly on the Government side, is always subconsciously reserving a right for the future—" One day we may have to justify using the Guillotine ourselves. Therefore, we must not go too far in our opposition to this Government using it ".
I have always seen the force of this point of view. Nevertheless, there is one aspect of it from the point of view of back-bench Members, particularly those in opposition, which requires saying and repeating, and repeating yet again. Gov-

ernments ought to remember more frequently than they do that the hardest hit by the imposition of a guillotine Motion are Opposition back-bench Members.
The moment any Government introduce a guillotine Motion, that is almost the go-ahead for as many Government back benchers as can possibly rise to get up and use time. This is an open invitation to Government supporters to take part in debates, whereas if they are free debates they are very often prevented from participating in them by the Chief Whip. Therefore, inevitably the Members who suffer from the Guillotine are the Opposition back benchers.
I do not recollect any Bill that has ever been presented to Parliament since I have been here which has produced more differing and outspoken resistance from the electorate. If Opposition back benchers have any duty, surely it is to voice those sorts of views which are put to them by their own constituents in opposition to what the Government are trying to do. It is this which makes this particular guillotine Motion so absolutely pernicious.
Here we have an anticipatory Guillotine—not a Guillotine which comes as a result of a protracted series of debates in Committee; oh, no, the Committee stage has not yet started. But the Government are so frightened and terrified of what will be said by the Opposition, Clause by Clause, on this iniquitous Bill that they are deliberately going to try to curtail the time taken to express the views of our constituents about the Bill. This is tyranny writ large.
When I consider whom the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian succeeds, I grieve deeply at the rapidity with which he is becoming caught in the snares of Socialist conceptions of tyranny. This is the most tyrannical act that I have ever heard the Leader of the House propose. It is the most tyrannical action that he has taken to date. I believe it was once said by Lloyd George that Parliament would only continue to work so long as both sides were agreed on the really fundamental principles on which to conduct their business. We are passing very rapidly from that state of affairs.
There is talk today outside the House about coalition. The only hope one will


get of coalition in this country is when everybody is agreed on the fundamentals as to how to solve a given situation. Has the cleavage ever been deeper than it is today'? So in our procedure in this House, unless we have a basic agreement as to the fundamentals on which we are to proceed, heaven help our proceedings in the future.
I cannot conceive how any self-respecting Opposition, especially their back benchers, could possibly condone this Motion for the Guillotine. I believe that the Leader of the House and I first came into 01,-; House on the same day, in 1945. Over the years I have always thought him to be very zealous in upholding the rights of back benchers. I say to him that he is letting down very badly indeed those in whose minds he built up that reputation. I believe that he is confusing the necessity of publishing the Selective Employment Payments Bill so that we could know what is in it while debating the Finance Bill, with the necessity of getting this Selective Employment Payments Bill before the Summer Recess.
As has been pointed out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), the Bill does not come into force till February of next year. It is true that it would have been monstrous for us to have had the Finance Bill as it was originally intended by the Government without our knowing what was going to be in this Bill, but the necessity for getting the Finance Bill does not carry with it the necessity for getting the Selective Employment Payments Bill at the same time, or even this year. It is perfectly possible that it could be deferred till after the Summer Recess.
I must say to the Leader of the House that, in the point of order which I sought to put during question on business today, I hope I did not mislead him or the House. What I was seeking to find out was whether the right hon. Gentleman had, in fact, approached the Chair before he made his business statement, namely, that we would be able to go wider than usual on the Third Reading debate of the Finance Bill. If the Government are now short of time to enable a proper debate to take place about the economic state of the nation—-and goodness knows, it needs debate—-and if they are short of time in getting their Finance Bill along with all the other stuff that they are trying to throw

at the people and at Parliament, the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West is a complete answer to it. He provided all the necessary days that the right hon. Gentleman needs if he wants to go ahead with his Bill. I would suggest a much easier way of making this Guillotine unnecessary, and that would be for the Finance Bill to be represented and amended so as to take out the Selective Employment Tax altogether. Then we should not need this Bill.
That would be the simplest way. Bearing in mind the appalling chaos that is being caused by the Selective Employment Tax prospects throughout industry today and throughout the whole of our economy, about the best thing that the right hon. Gentleman could possibly do would be to advise the Chancellor to amend the Finance Bill, take out Selective Employment Tax altogether and think it out properly before it is reintroduced, if ever.
I suggest that the Government have some obligation to take account of changing circumstances. Whatever may have been the circumstances when the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced his Budget this year, I do not believe that even the Chancellor or the Chief Secretary would pretend that the circumstances have not changed a little since then. I remember Sir Winston Churchill saying often that he always attributed much of his greatness to the fact that when circumstances changed he was prepared to change his mind.
The trouble with the Socialists is that they never change their minds. Socialists are so fixed with certain dogma that once they have done something they are too terrified of altering it for fear that they should be thought weak. They go blundering on day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year with legislation and measures which become worse and less relevant to the needs of our time.
Here we have circumstances having changed for the worse so dangerously rapidly that no one knows where the economy of this country is going. Yet we have a Government and a Chancellor of the Exchequer blundering on with one of the most irrelevant, ill-thought-out, asinine Finance Bills ever presented to the nation. That is where the time saving should be made. Let us get the


Chancellor to come to this House, revise his Finance Bill and thus make this Bill that we are about to debate in Committee absolutely unnecessary.
I know that Front Benchers are in a position of very great power, but the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian is wrong in one thing that he said. Front Benchers can still be stopped by those who love Parliament, by those who believe that some things are more important than party loyalties. Governments can still be stopped if their back benchers say to those Governments, "You are going too far and we shall not support you if you try to do it any more."
Although, obviously, it is upon the Opposition that the greatest duty lies in opposing Measures of this kind, and although it be true that the people who suffer most, from a Party point of view, if such Measures are introduced and carried by the Government are the Opposition back benchers, the duty on Government back benchers—goodness knows where most of them are this afternoon—is quite as great if they are to uphold Parliament and the rights of hon. Members.
I am quite prepared to believe that the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian meant what he said and genuinely wishes to look after the rights of individual Members, but I can only say that it comes ill from that side of the House for it to be suggested this afternoon that all power has gone to stop the Government doing things which are alien to the freedom of our people and the rights of the individual.

Mr. Mackintosh: We should be more likely to support the hon. Gentleman if he argued about the freedom of back benchers instead of indulging in a rather general and blundering attack on the Government.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to go on, I am quite ready to do so. As he gives me the opportunity, I shall go on for a short time.
The Amendments down on the Order Paper cover a very wide range of different interests. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East made an extremely important point when he spoke of the attitude of those

who suddenly found that Amendments put down on their behalf had been ruled out simply because Amendments put down on someone else's behalf had been debated. This is the inevitable price of having the Guillotine. Never have I known so many different people write to me saying that they are thoroughly dissatisfied with a Bill, and never have I known so many people with such a diversity of interest make their protests.
The price of having the Guillotine on a Bill like this is, inevitably, that a great many people's interests will not be heard. We are put in an even worse position by what the Leader of the House has told us about whether the Bill is a money Bill or not. It is all very well to say that we must get the Bill back from another place before the Summer Recess. If it is a money Bill, the other place will not have much chance to do anything about it. There will be little chance of filling in the gaps which we shall leave because of the Guillotine.
On the other hand, if the Bill is not a money Bill and the other place has ample opportunity to suggest Amendments, we shall, presumably, have to consider Lords Amendments which come back to us here. The Leader of the House will leave us in a far worse position than when he began. He says that he knows that those of us with children want to get away on holiday and he would like to give us a date, but he cannot do so now. This is treating Parliament with contempt. Moreover, it is treating those who serve Parliament with considerable contempt.
I have no wish to be demagogic about it, but we all recognise that more than our own convenience is involved in this matter. There are a great many people upon whom we rely every day if this place is to work at all, people who are not Members but servants of the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is being less than fair to them as well as less than courteous to us. It does not become him well to be discourteous. He has been so polite all through his life in Parliament that I hate to see what is happening now. He is betraying the great trust which many of us, on whichever side of the House we sit, have put in him.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to give us the following assurances. First,


will he assure us that he will again discuss with the Chancellor the possibility of providing the necessary time for the Government to complete their business by so amending the Finance Bill as to make this Bill unnecessary? Secondly, will he as soon as possible get a Ruling formally, in the open, from the Chair on whether this Bill is a Money Bill. Thirdly, will he get a firm Ruling on exactly what is to be the form of the debate permitted on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill? Fourthly, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will advise those who will be in charge of the Bill that they ought to accept many of the Amendments which have been put down both to this Motion and to the Bill itself.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Henig: I hope that this will not turn out to be a case of university lecturers in politics thinking together, but I am somewhat disturbed that the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) to back benchers opposite has not been taken up.
I understood my hon. Friend to say—and this I echo—that, if we are today discussing the question of Parliamentary control. or the lack of it, over Executives of any kind, Conservative, Labour or even Liberal, this is one matter, and one on which we should agree with a good number of hon. Members opposite.
If, on the other hand, this debate is to develop into a slanging match about whether the Socialists have done more or less than the Conservatives and about whether the Selective Employment Tax is good or bad, no proper debate of that kind will happen, and during the hours to come we shall all proceed dutifully into our Division Lobbies and, in those circumstances, the Government will be certain to win. If back benchers opposite want to get anywhere in this debate as distinct from letting off steam, they would do well to follow the advice given by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian.
I was flattered by being referred to by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) in his reference to a point I had made at Question Time last Thursday. The point I then made,

to which the right hon. Gentleman referred somewhat cursorily, I thought, was that at the moment we are not exactly performing a useful function. It is clear to anyone of any intelligence at all that, at the end of today, or tomorrow morning, the Government will have their guillotine Motion. In fact, as soon as they tabled it, that was equally clear. What, then, are we doing now in debating it? Why are we not taking this day to start now the Committee stage of the Bill?
The Opposition Front Bench may say that it is the Government's fault, and the Government Front Bench may say that it is the Opposition's fault. I am not interested in arguing about whose fault it is. All I say is that, if there are four days available between now and the end of the Committee stage on the Selective Employment Payments Bill, it is a pretty poor show, when on both sides of the House we are talking about increasing productivity, to devote a whole day to arguing about whether the debate is to end in four days and doing nothing about the Bill itself at the earliest opportunity. It is really quite absurd.
What is at stake today is the procedure of the House. We must face the fact that our procedure here—

Sir Douglas Glover: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong when he says that proceedings on the Bill must Finish on the day the Government want. It may be true that they will finish in that way, but there is no "must" about it if there are any guts on his side of the House.

Mr. Henig: I am talking about political realities. If hon. Members opposite wish to ignore them and make fancy constitutional points, that is their right. I am simply observing as a matter of fact that, at the end of the three Committee days allocated, the debate will end. That is the point at issue, though hon. Members may argue about constitutional niceties.
I had referred to the procedure of the House, and this is important. We are here discussing the moot point whether we are to have three or more days for the Committee stage of the Bill. In due course, on the first allotted day, the House will go into Committee. When I was lecturing in politics, I never did quite


see what was the point of a Committee of the whole House. I should have thought that, by definition, a Committee was part of the whole, but here we show our belief in the uniqueness of this place by having a Committee of all of the whole. Once again, a group of Members will assemble and earnestly debate, until late in the night, whether particular Clauses of the Bill should or should not stand part. It seems to me to be ludicrous.
First of all, we are spending a whole day debating whether there should be three days for the Committee stage when there are a great many things which ought to be dealt with, and dealt with quickly, by the House. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say that the Government are in a legislative mess. This is because they have to do in five years what the Tories did not do in 13 years and left over. There is a great mass of legislation to be done, and the legislation affects ordinary people in the street.
So the first thing that the House ought to do if it wants the country to become more modern and increase productivity is to push up its own productivity, to stop having Committees of the whole House meeting at all hours of the day and night on Finance Bills and so on. Instead, it should send Bills for their Committee stage to a small Standing Committee which can look at them in detail, sitting at civilised hours, and then, when it has done the work, send back the Bills to the whole House, which can then consider them and either give or not give them a Second Reading.
What worries me is that I do not believe that the Opposition are really interested in the ability to change the Government's mind. They seem to see opposition purely in terms of whether or not they can delay matters. This seems to me to be a particularly unhealthy state of affairs. From all that I have seen since I became a Member of the House, things are stratified. There is a procedure. The Leader of the House said today that we have "all been here before ". No doubt a majority of hon. Members have
It seems ludicrous to me that every so been, but I have not had that privilege. often the Government table a timetable

Motion, and the Opposition, whether Labour or Conservative, explode in a mass of indignation. What happens in the end? Nothing happens, because the Government get their way. I suspect that the kind of opposition that we have today suits the Government's book adequately. The Government know that they will win; they know what will happen in the end. What any Government, whether of this side or the other side, would not like would be specialist standing committees with power to call for persons or papers and the same group of people looking at all Bills on a certain subject. It would mean that Parliament might really have some power to control and alter what the Government do. My belief is that if hon. Members are angry at what the Government are doing, what they should do is to seek to find ways to change what the Government are doing, not purely ways in which they can obstruct.
The public are not very interested in this debate. No one will have seen masses of people queueing up to listen to the debate. No one will see people rushing tomorrow morning to get their newspapers to see what was said here. Indeed, in most newspapers there will not be reports of what is said today. Yet hon. Member after hon. Member opposite says that the liberty of Parliament is at stake. Three hundred years ago that was a very important rallying cry when half the nation was rallied against the other half over the issue of the liberty of Parliament. But today it sounds rather like a joke. I suspect that the people talking about it today often regard it as a joke. It is a joke because one knows what the outcome will be. We know that if Parliament was really concerned about its liberties and powers to control the Executive it would do things other than it is doing at the moment.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Does the hon. Gentleman regard it as a joke?

Mr. Henig: I regard the way in which this Motion is being opposed as a joke.
Hon. Members opposite, as well as hon. Members on this side, know that the Government's timetable Motion will be passed. We may be up all night, but it will not make any difference. Hon. Members opposite, as is the case with some hon. Members on this side, fight


shy of a real reform which would give all the back benchers real power of control over the Executive.

Mr. A. P. Costain: In view of the logic of the hon. Member's argument, would he tell us why Parliament sits at all?

Mr. Henig: Parliament sits because it is the body which can control and check the Executive. The question at issue is whether, at the moment, Parliament is doing it as well as it might. My contention, and the contention of some of my hon. Friends, is that Parliament is not doing its job as well as it might. Parliament is not doing its job well when, on the Government putting down this kind of Motion, there are explosions of synthetic anger from an Opposition who are not prepared to advocate the only fundamental changes which could give the members of the Legislature greater power over the Executive.
We have these synthetic explosions of indignation about the liberty of the House. From what I have seen so far in this House, it seems very unfortunate to me that the subjects which arouse the greatest excitement and the greatest Parliamentary scenes are inevitably those connected with turgid points of procedure which are supposed to relate to the liberty of the House. Let us remember that the liberties of the House are important not in so far as they relate to constitutional niceties from lawyers long dead, but only in so far as they relate to the liberties of the people of the country. It is extremely unfortunate that we spend all our time discussing constitutionally nice points about our liberties, but very often find no time whatever to discuss important matters which relate to the liberties of our citizens.
Today, there is an opportunity for the House to get down to a fundamental point which ought to be of great concern to everybody, and that is whether the future of this country is to be one in which the Executive gains more and more power at the expense of the Legislature and whether Parliament is to become a bore, a show-piece, something for tourists and nothing more, or whether we are to have a different course of events in which Parliament can, by debating Motions not so much on the Floor of the House but

in small Committees, gain more control over the Executive. I submit that that should be the objective of both sides. I hope that no one will suggest that my desire for control over the Executive is less when it is my party which is the Executive, because this is not so. Here is a matter for all Members of Parliament to look at.
My suggestion is that the rest of the debate tonight—I hope that it will not go on all night, because that is equally pointless—should be concerned with these great issues and not some kind of slapstick circus in which arguments which have been put forward for 20 years on guillotine Motions will be repeated ad infinitum, so that in five, 10 or 15 years' time the Front Benches will exchange jokes about what was said on this occasion. Let us get down to the fundamental issue. Then, I think, some of the back benchers on the Opposition side who are complaining about us will find that we on this side are most interested in the whole cause of the Legislature against the Executive.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: We have had two lectures, both pretty bad ones. Certainly the way to make Parliament a bore is to have it full of lecturers on politics who know nothing about the House of Commons.
When the previous lecturer was speaking, he committed himself to the statement that there is never any result from a debate on the Committee stage in the House of Commons. That is absolute nonsense. Many hundreds of thousands of times we have seen Amendments accepted. Thousands of times Ministers have said "I agree with your point. I will bring in my own words on Report ". I have done it again and again as a Minister.
The logic of the argument of both lecturers was that nothing said in the House of Commons really matters. That is a very dangerous doctrine. If the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) wants to control the Executive, I will give him some advice. He should vote against his Government. The truth is that politics as an academic subject is one of the great growth industries: it is sailing ahead. Anyone who has been in the unfortunate position of being lectured by one of these


lecturers will have found their ideas insane. The truth is that they have not the faintest idea of what it is all about. I should like to see all faculties of politics abolished. Let them teach history instead. What will happen to these lecturers? Surely there are many vacancies in our borstals.
I express indignation—not synthetic—about the Motion. What is happening to the Government is that they are gradually being led on to the use of force and to the disregard of the traditions of Parliament. I do not think that they want to do this, although quite a lot of their back benchers do. But the Government are led on in this way simply because of their lack of judgment and their amazing technical incompetence.
When we get our statement this week it will be the 21st since the Government took office 21 months ago in which restrictive measures have been announced —and this from a Government who knew how to get away from "stop-go". In the week in which this Motion was announced, we had the classic instance of technical incompetence.
On Monday we were told that everything was all right. On Tuesday the Chancellor of the Exchequer answered a question about the credit squeeze. In the evening the Prime Minister made a great speech about "moaning minnies". What a wonderful gift he has for coining a phrase; that is why all hon. Members opposite are so proud of him. On Thursday the Prime Minister elbowed the Chancellor of the Exchequer out of the way and announced an increase in Bank Rate and special deposits and said that sometime, when he had thought up something, he would announce something more. On every single occasion the run on the £ has accelerated. On Sunday we were informed that the Prime Minister would announce his moves a little earlier. The run on £ the accelerated again. I have not always been able to conceal my opinion of the present Treasury Ministers —they are the weakest lot ever to moisten the Front Bench. My opinion of the competence of the Prime Minister is almost as low as my opinion of his character. But when these professors of politics are talking about this House they should bear in mind certain things.
I imagine that they both belong to "Wilson's young eagles", but when they stop mewing and squawking about Parliament they should remember that they have never been in opposition and have never served under a competent Government. These troubles simply arise from the fact that the Treasury is not competent. Dr. Kaldor treats the Chancellor rather like a naughty child with a doll swinging it around and smashing its head on the floor. The Selective Employment Tax is an example. It was thought up, as everyone knows, in a matter of days and already has been fundamentally altered in respect of agriculture, horticulture, charities, extractive industries and so on.
Hundreds of point of immense importance to all our constituents have not yet been worked out nor even thought out, and they require discussion. It is all very well to say that if each of us only spoke for a quarter of a minute we could do the job but some of these problems are of immense complexity. There are enormous problems and it is wrong that we should not discuss them. I have no doubt that our constituents do not mind a great deal about this debate but they do mind being messed about as they will be.
The drift to force and the disregard of the traditions of the House come about through lack of purpose and courage by the Prime Minister. He is all over the place. One day he will not negotiate with the traitor Smith and then he will. One day there is to be no more "stop-go" and next day there is a permanent "stop ". One day there are to be no rises in wages and the next day there are. I am reminded of a certain commanding officer during the war known as "Kipper" by his men on the ground that he was two-faced and had no guts. Unfortunately we have a kipper as our Prime Minister. I believe that, with the help of some of the professors opposite, we may be able to turn out a kipper Government who are degrading our country.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I am sure that at least on this side of the House we cordially enjoyed, as always, the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) but I want to come back to the essential procedural point being debated. Tribute has rightly been paid to


the position of the Leader of the House. I have always thought that he did one of the most courageous acts a man could do when he was Opposition Chief Whip. The right hon. Gentleman, as Opposition Chief 'Whip, stated in evidence to the Select Committee on Procedure that it would be a good thing for the House to move to procedures which could allow for a permanent timetable. This was a very courageous thing for an Opposition Chief Whip to do but the right hon. Gentleman did it.
But two things have subsequently greatly disappointed me. The first is that we have seen astonishingly little action on that front since then so that, once again, we are debating a makeshift timetable Motion for a particular Measure. I am certain that one day the House will move to a permanent Standing Committee which will discuss a timetable on an agreed basis for major legislation. Of course it will be coupled, and will have to be coupled, with a time limit on speeches. I want to refer to that again, because there is an ugly development on that aspect.
The second profound disappointment to one who holds the right hon. Gentleman in personal admiration is that there have been instances where, clearly, he has not been in command of the House. I have in mind, for example, the particularly squalid episode in the last Parliament when a Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave).

Mr. Speaker: Order. This might be very interesting on another day but not in this debate.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I hope that I have recalled the incident to your mind. It was clear on that occasion that the right hon. Gentleman was not in command of the House. In terms of this Motion, there is a particular development to which I want to refer which indicates exactly the same thing. The point is that if we are ever to move, as I believe we can, to a permanent timetable procedure coupled with a time limit on speeches, it will be, rightly And properly, done by agreement across the Floor of the House in a way with which we are all familiar. It will mean that this kind of Motion will fall into the past.
It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that each Opposition of the day is apt to complain—and not always unreasonably—that anything of this kind is an imposition on its freedom. It was done when we limited ourselves to what we now call the Ten o'clock Rule. The right hon. Gentleman gave the lead when he was in Opposition. It seems singularly regrettable that nearly two Parliamentary years later we are still in precisely the same position.
That it might improve the quality of our debates I have no doubt, if it is done by agreement. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) referred to a particularly good debate, as he felt, when we were brisk and short and worked on a voluntary timetable. Having listened to his excellent contribution on that occasion, I am certain that he was referring to a debate on the universities. If the record is studied, it will be seen that no hon. Member spoke for longer than 10 minutes, by voluntary restriction. But that was done by consensus of opinion across the Floor of the House. It unquestionably improved the quality of our debates, and there is much to be learned from that example.
But that is wholly different from imposing upon the House, before the start of a Committee stage, without agreement, a timetable Motion of this kind, particularly as in normal circumstances the tax, which is the central point of the Bill, would never have been in a separate Bill at all. Everybody knows the reason. Senior Treasury Ministers are decidedly indiscreet when they lunch in City boardrooms and elsewhere about the way in which this tax was introduced very quickly as far as they were concerned. These things get round. We should never ever have been having a tax in a separate Bill, or a large part of it in a separate Bill, if it were not for the accepted and acknowledged fact that the Inland Revenue was and is grossly overworked and that we are close to breakdown in important sections of the Revenue and that for that reason we have had to employ the wholly foreign concept—and that is not meant as a joke in this context—of using the machinery of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and the Ministry of Labour for tax purposes. Had it been, as it would have been if it had been properly planned and properly thought out


and properly prepared, in one Finance Bill, we should never have been having this discussion.
The plain fact, too, is that prolonged discussion can go against an Opposition. Intelligent opposition does not permit a discussion to get to the limit of prolongation so that public interest is lost and the point and the pith of the argument are evaporated. That is the balancing factor between the two sides. I sincerely believe that if an approach had been made, certainly if the proposals had been incorporated in only one Bill and an approach had been made publicly, for a reasonable measure of agreement between the two sides for discussing the enormous range of interests involved, that would have been capable of achievement. I am very regretful that the Government have not taken that step.
I quite understand the technical reasons which have made them introduce a separate Bill. It is just as well to remember how close to breakdown we are. I do not propose to give any details in public, but I have had interviews with senior officials of the Revenue about substantial sums of tax being lost because of the problems of overwork by the authorities. I propose to give no sort of clue as to where these lie, but it is a fact and officials will confirm what I say. We are grossly overworking officials in important sections of the Revenue. That is why the tax is in two Bills and that, in turn, is why we are having this discussion at all.
The reasons for this Motion are not difficult to see. First, the Government are under immense pressure to get to the harbour of the long recess. The summer is always a difficult time for any Government. Tempers get rather bad and Ministers trip, or are apt to trip—these trip more frequently than most—and it is a difficult period. One can understand the Prime Minister's anxiety to get quickly into harbour. If those matters about which he is to talk to us on Wednesday require legislative action, obviously he will have said to the Leader of the House that the right hon. Gentleman must have his legislative desk clearer than it is at present. Some very good and constructive ideas have been given to him for achieving this.
On this subject I will give just this one word to the Leader of the House: if he consults international banking opinion, he will find that one of the things which surprises it most is the Government's determination in present economic circumstances to proceed with steel nationalisation. It is surprising just how strongly this has impinged on our creditors abroad. I must go no further than that and I say that only as an aside. It may be that one of the things with which Ministers are now wrestling is just how to present to their back benchers that this measure has to be dropped. We shall see. [Laughter.] The laughter may be double-faced on Wednesday; we shall see. Meanwhile we have the Prime Minister making strong efforts to get into the haven of the Parliamentary recess.
Coupled with that we have immense pressures from back benchers. I do not think that I would ever have believed that a feeling of joyous confidence at winning an election could evaporate so quickly as I have seen it evaporate on the Government benches. I do not think that I have ever seen disillusion set in so fast in any body of men and women. It is one of the most remarkable features of our present Parliamentary set-up, which is remarked on by neutral observers who have no political affiliations and who watch our processes with other eyes. One of the Prime Minister's problems is to get this unhappy band into the Parliamentary recess without any too great further damage being done. Hence the immense pressures for the timetable Motion which we are now discussing.
I am one of those who, without apology and quite firmly, have always maintained that the House is better served by having in it a certain proportion—I do not say all—of men and women with outside interests. It is a good thing for there to be men and women in the House who make and lose money in the same way as other people whom we represent.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must link what he is saying to the timetable Motion. We cannot have a broad discussion about the structure of Parliament.

Mr. van Straubenzee: You are cutting me off from saying how I lose money outside the House, Mr. Speaker. I hope


that there is relevance in what I am about to say. I merely wanted to make the point that if the Leader of the House is concerned about the willingness of hon. Members to work into August, if he wishes, or to come back earlier, if, for example, he is courteously considering the interests of those, like myself, with outside interests, then let it be said quite clearly that every hon. Member, in whichever party he sits, always regards his service to the House as his overwhelming and primary duty. There are no doubts about that. Thus to be anxious to get out our buckets and spades and pattipans and be off to the sea, or wherever we go. in the economic state of the nation as it is at present, and with a Bill undiscussed, would be to make a mockery and a farce of Parliament.
I have no qualifications whatever to give the academic analyses that we were lucky enough to listen to earlier on. We were clearly benefited by the weighty contributions made. I know, as an ordinary practical back bencher of this House, that one of the things that breeds discontent in the country is the feeling that many of the matters which are deeply ingrained and felt by our constituents are not properly discussed here. There can be very few better examples than a tax of this kind which affects every single one of our constituents in one particular or another.
If the feeling gets about that we have not adequately discussed this tax it will do more in one single step to breed a growing disillusionment with our procedure than anything else that we can do. All this leads to a devastating case against the imposition, without any attempt to get agreement, of a timetable Motion on a Bill which would never have materialised if it had not been for the gross overworking of the Inland Revenue.
There is one final and, I think, sinister aspect of this matter. I frankly believe that one of those who has a very powerful say behind the scenes—and it is always behind the scenes—in our timetable here is the Paymaster-General. There is a very unhappy rumour going around—if one wants to find out what the Paymaster-General is doing one has to devil in the same sort of way as he does—that precisely because we are going to have a timetable Motion it will be

so organised that a substantial amount of time, he would hope over-substantial, will be taken up by an organised corps of Government back benchers.
I shall be grateful if the Leader of the House would pay attention to this. In ordinary circumstances I would never dream of paying the smallest attention to the tittle tattle of that level. But, having lived through some of the Paymaster-General's activities in this House, I attach considerable importance to this particular manoeuvre in conjunction with this timetable Motion. I want to make it clear that I still do not believe that the Leader of the House would lower himself to tactics of that kind—I have far too great a personal respect and regard for him. But he must pay attention to the activities of one of those at least metaphorically alongside him and the damage that this does to the understandings upon which this House works.
To draw the threads of my argument together—[Interruption.]—I am happy to think that a number of hon. Members opposite are ready to contribute to this debate, because they will add considerably to its value. We should like to hear a number of supporting speeches in favour of the guillotine Motion and I am sure that we will not feel that they will be depleted by the fact that practically no hon. Members opposite have been in the House until about half an hour ago.
This was an unnecessary Bill, and a hybrid Bill. It would never have been so had it not been for the over-working of the Revenue. This meant that it had to be done in two parts. In time this has resulted in a timetable Motion being imposed without any attempt at agreement between the two parties. This could lead, and I have an uneasy feeling that it will lead, to pretty sinister manipulations of our proceedings. In the modern vernacular it is N.S.D., and it ought to be thrown out hook, line and sinker.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: When I came into this House this afternoon I had not the slightest intention of taking part in this debate, and I would not have attempted to do so had it not been for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch). It was his speech which prompted me to participate, and I will refer to some of


his remarks in a moment. First, I should say that I agree entirely with what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), that it is most discourteous for an hon. Member to participate in a debate, without having heard the previous speeches. For that reason, among others, I would not have taken part in this debate, but for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint, West.
His speech was one which certainly entitled us on this side of the House to make our comments upon it and that is what I proceed to do, whether I have his permission, or the permission of anyone else. The second reason why I want to participate in the debate is that, when I saw the massive number of hon. Gentlemen opposite getting up to continue the debate, I thought that I would rather listen to myself than listen to any of them, and I therefore decided to proceed.
I hope that this point will also be understood by the hon. Member for Wokingham. He said that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General has been engaged in some form of sinister conspiracy, because he has allegedly been suggesting that if a guillotine Motion is passed, then it might be arranged for some hon. Gentlemen from this side of the House to participate in the debates as well as hon. Gentlemen on the other side. I have not heard any of these rumours and I do not subscribe to this new doctrine that I hear goes round the House which is epitomised in the phrase, "Walls have wigs". I do not accept this doctrine and I conduct my affairs as if this did not occur.
It would not be an extraordinary procedure if, under a guillotine Motion, it were easier for supporters of the Government to participate in debates than if there was no Guillotine. This development has occurred, so far as I can recall, whenever a guillotine Motion has been introduced. It happened when hon. Gentlemen opposite were on this side of the House. They introduced more guillotine Motions, as we were informed at the beginning of this debate, by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, in the past 13 years than in almost any other period of British Parlia-

mentary history. It is only right to underline this afresh. When they did so we saw this development: immediately, some of their supporters who had been completely silent before, became vocal. If this occurs on this occasion it will not be due to the influence of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General: it will be due to the natural course of events.
Some people, not myself, may say that this is an argument for the Guillotine. It makes the argument less one-sided and in that sense it could be argued that hon. Gentlemen will be able to hear more fully what is the view of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House. I do not think that there can be any quarrel with that suggestion. It is the most innocent accusation that has ever been made against the Paymaster-General. If he was doing nothing else but that for all of the time well—[Interruption.]—I am glad to carry the House with me so far.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Flint, West was not speaking to a guillotine Motion at all, and he knows that very well. He intervened in the debate in order to let off some of his vicious epigrams about the Prime Minister, some of them even new. He thought that this was a proper occasion. He might have saved them up until the Third Reading of the Finance Bill. They might have been a bit more relevant then. However, he thought that he would get them in now and that is the way in which he has used this debate.
He started off by saying that his indignation about the guillotine Motion was not synthetic and then he never mentioned the guillotine Motion again. He merely went ahead to discuss the Prime Minister in his usual terms. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to recapture his one moment in Parliamentary history. Everyone in this House knows that the one thing for which the right hon. Gentleman will be remembered for all of his political life, by his party—[Interruption.]—no, it was not his removal from the Treasury bench, or his withdrawal; it will be for none of his contributions to the nation's finances. This is not what he will be remembered for. It will be not his casual conversations on the grouse moors


or his evidence to the Bank Rate Tribunal—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the Speaker has ears. He must keep in order.

Mr. Foot: Unlike the rest of the House, Mr. Speaker, you had the good fortune not to hear the right hon. Member for Flint, 'West. I am replying to him directly. The one moment in Parliamentary history for which he will be remembered by his own party and by all of us was when his Prime Minister was in great difficulties—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Motion.

Mr. Foot: I was saying that, in my opinion, the speech of the right hon. Member for Flint, West, illustrated how little the Opposition were concerned about this Motion, partly because he did not refer to it and partly because, instead of revealing the indignation of the Opposition about the Motion, he used the occasion to make a vicious personal attack on the Prime Minister—this from a man whose one achievement in politics was to stab his own leader in the back in the middle of the Profumo crisis.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even if the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) misused the debate, it is no justification for the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) doing so. He must talk about the Motion.

Mr. E. Shinwell: On a point of order. I had the misfortune to listen to the speech of the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) and after the exhibition, with manifestations of bitter venom—  [Interruption.] It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Flint, West to snigger. He does not like the reply. I think that we should have a reply. I should like to make it myself —and God help the right hon. Gentleman if I do.

Mr. Foot: I am all in favour of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easing-ton (Mr. Shinwell) making his reply, but I wish that he would not make it in my speech. He should choose some other occasion. Perhaps he can get into the debates which we have in other places. I cannot, so I have to come here to make my speeches. I will be making an appli-

cation to my right hon. Friend at some future date.
I am sorry if my speech was not as precisely in order as I always desire my speeches to be. I got into these difficulties because I wanted to reply to the speech of the right hon. Member for Flint, West. No one who heard his speech could doubt that the opposition of right hon. and hon. Members opposite to this Motion is bogus. No one who heard this speech could question that they are using this occasion merely for the purpose, as they think, of prosecuting their political animosities rather than for arguing the Parliamentary question of whether the Guillotine should be imposed in these circumstances. That is my judgment of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and I would ask for the support of every hon. Member who heard his speech in my belief that he did not use his time to apply his mind to the Motion. But I will.
The hon. Member for Wokingham said that one of his objections to the Motion is that the Finance Bill is, in effect, two Bills and that this is one of the reasons why we have got into these difficulties. He says that the Government introduced financial measures which could not be put in the Finance Bill and therefore we had to have a second Bill on which the Government had to introduce an allocation of time Motion. But this has been done on many occasions. It may be regrettable that Governments, particularly Chancellors of the Exchequer, do not always arrange in advance that all their budgetary proposals are put in one Bill. It may be objectionable; but it has been done on many occasions.
I can remember that the Guillotine was imposed when a Budget was introduced in the midst of a financial crisis and when the previous Government, at the same time as they introduced their Finance Bill, introduced measures which imposed charges on the Health Service. That happened on two or three occasions. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) was responsible in previous economic crises for imposing charges on people who had to buy surgical boots, and the rest, which makes us rather dubious about his lamentations of interest in the hardship imposed on disabled people by these measures.

Mr. Birch: The charges are still on surgical boots.

Mr. Foot: Yes, and it is most deplorable. They should be taken off. The right hon. Gentleman led me astray with his speech. He is now trying to get me out of order with his interruptions.
As I was saying, previous Governments, of which the right hon. Member for Flint, West was a member, on many occasions did not introduce all their budgetary proposals in one Bill. They often had to have two or three Bills, and the example which I quote is relevant. On those occasions we had a separate Bill introduced under which charges were imposed on the Health Service and those measures were driven through the House under the Guillotine. All the measures which I can recall imposing fresh changes on the Health Service were pushed through under the Guillotine. Therefore, the hon. Member for Wokingham must not talk as if it is a novelty for the Government to resort to this device, however much we might hope that Chancellors of the Exchequer could put all their measures in the one Bill.
There is another aspect of the discussion which should be considered. When we started our proceedings, Mr. Speaker, you stated the reasons why you had called certain Amendments and had rejected others. I was rather dumbfounded because I had not heard a Speaker give his reasons for calling particular Amendments in such detail. I am not altogether certain whether it is the wisest course for Speakers to take. If Speakers are to give the reasons why they have selected certain Amendments and rejected others, those reasons should be open to discussion. Up to now, they have been open to discussion only on a Motion about the Speaker. I am opposed to Motions about the Speaker. I believe that Motions about the Speaker, the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means or Officers of the House should be tabled only in extreme circumstances.
I mention this because the matters in this Motion about which I am concerned are excluded from direct discussion under the Amendments, although I should obviously be in order in discussing them under the main Question. Many of the Amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West

(Mr. William Hamilton) are very good Amendments which should have commanded the support of many hon. Members opposite, according to their professions.
Some of his Amendments propose that extra time should be given to the discussion of the Bill in the mornings. I gather that that is what the hon. Members opposite want. My hon. Friend, in his usual accommodating mood, is trying to help hon. Members opposite. If my hon. Friend's Amendments were all called and passed, then I understand that in certain cases some extra time would be provided for discussion of the Bill. I very well recall remarks made by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West last Thursday when this debate was announced. He then said that he would be prepared to sit longer into August to discuss the Bill or to sit in the morning.

Mr. Birch: No.

Mr. Foot: Not only did the right hon. Gentleman say that but every one heard him say it. I rose at the time and said that he had said it. The right hon. Member for Flint, West can speak for himself but he cannot speak for the rest of hon. Members opposite. Indeed, I do not suppose that he can speak for any of them. His right hon. Friend said that he was prepared to sit in the mornings as one method of providing extra time to discuss the Bill.

Mr. Hector Hughes: If my hon. Friend's argument is, as it seems to be, that Mr. Speaker's selection of certain Amendments and his rejection of others should be open to discussion, would not that further waste the time which is required for discussion of the Bill?

Mr. Foot: I thought that I had passed that point fairly successfully. When my hon. and learned Friend is skating over thin ice at Hampstead, even he had better be careful not to fall in, even though he can swim. As an aside—and most speeches from hon. Members opposite have been asides in the debate—I was saying that I thought it open to discussion whether it was advisable—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may be falling through thin ice. He


may not question Mr. Speaker's selection of Amendments.

Mr. Foot: I was not questioning the selection. I was referring to the point, Mr. Speaker, that you had given some reasons why you had selected some Amendments and rejected others and I was animadverting that this is not necessarily the wisest course for Mr. Speaker to take, because if Speakers discuss the reasons why they are selecting certain Amendments it will be necessarily so that hon. Members will wish to discuss them, too—

Mr. Speaker: Order. To put the matter beyond a peradventure, the fact that Mr. Speaker is courteous enough to indicate to the House some of the reasons why he has selected Amendments does not entitle the House to take away Mr. Speaker's rights to select Amendments.

Mr. Foot: I was not seeking, and it would be most presumptuous of me to suggest it, to take away from Mr. Speaker in any sense his right to select Amendments. I was merely saying that if Mr. Speaker gives certain reasons why he is not selecting Amendments, then necessarily that is a different situation from that in which Mr. Speaker merely says, "I have selected certain Amendments and rejected others ", particularly when he is rejecting Amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West who indicated, I think in too generalised manner, that Amendments from this side of the House were bound to be rejected in any event.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member to leave that point. In a most courteous way he is criticising the selection of Amendments by Mr. Speaker and, as he knows, that may not be questioned in the House.

Mr. Foot: I will certainly leave the matter. It is my belief that the House should discuss on this Motion whether we could not have dealt with the Bill better by allocating some time in the mornings for discussion.
I very much object to guillotine Motions. I do not think that they are good for the House of Commons. For the reasons which have been given by some hon. Members opposite, they are inclined to deaden debate. When it is

known by the Government Front Bench that the end of the debate is to be reached by a certain time, some of the flexibility and spontaneity of the debate is necessarily lost. It was most churlish and ungenerous of the right hon. Member for Flint, West in the course of his remarks—again it was an illustration of how little he was in earnest about the main subject—to attack the Treasury spokesmen on the Finance Bill. I think that everybody in the House except himself, whether they agree with the policies or not, agrees that the exposition of the Government's case has been extremely good. Indeed, that has been acknowledged by almost every hon. Member opposite. We do not expect it from the right hon. Gentleman. He thinks that he is the only person who should sit on the Treasury Bench, and that opinion has never been shared by anybody, particularly by his own Prime Minister, which was no doubt the reason why he pursued his particular vendetta with such enmity against the man who sacked him.

Mr. Birch: I resigned.

Mr. Foot: Well, it was unanimous.
The House should be extremely chary in resorting to guillotine Motions. I propose to vote for this one partly because I wish to see the Government go ahead with many Measures which I want to see on the Statute Book as quickly as possible. I understand that one of the reasons why the Opposition want eight or ten days for a discussion of this Bill is that they want to hold up some other Measures, for example, the Steel Bill. I want to see the Steel Bill on the Statute Book as quickly as possible. It surely would have been on the Statute Book years ago but for the quite undemocratic intervention of another place. I should like to do away with them, too. We could apply the Guillotine very effectively there.
I therefore have very good reasons for voting for the Government's Motion. I want to see all these Measures proceeded with. I well understand the Government's case; if they have to spend eight or ten days on this Bill, or whatever it is the Opposition are demanding—they have not fixed a figure—then many other necessary Measures will be killed. That is a substantial reason for the Motion.
If we are to avoid the futility of this kind of debate on the Guillotine—and I am occupying the time at least as well as hon. Members opposite; that is the best I can say for myself—then we must reform the procedure of the House of Commons. I am strongly in favour of it. I was put by my right hon. Friend on the Select Committee on Procedure to help in that purpose, but when I got upstairs I discovered that there were certain of my hon. Friends who said that the urgent reform of the House was by setting up a whole series of Select Committees. With the assistance of Mr. Redmayne—for personal reasons, although not for political reasons, I am sorry that he is not here—I put down a Motion stating that if the Select Committee on Procedure wasted all its time discussing that, it would hardly discuss anything else. What I then said was right. Day after day, week after week, the time of the Select Committee on Procedure was wasted discussing this distracting subject of whether we should set up Select Committees.
What we should have been discussing was how we could set reasonable timetables which would not be subject to the absolute limit of the Guillotine but which would be more flexible. That would be a very intelligent reform, and we should get ahead with it. We should be getting ahead with the question of changing the times of sitting of the House, a suggestion supported by a great mass of hon. Members. But we have not been able to get near this because we have had all these other proposals cluttering up the way. We should sit at a different time. I think that the only way in which this will come about is by backbench Members on all sides forcing their will on the Front Bench. That is the only way in which we can change the procedure, because as far as I can see the Front Bench are adamant in their objection to this change.
I thought that this was a very good opportunity for it, on the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West. We could have made the change and, incidentally, have had the advantage of calling the bluff of hon. Members opposite. If they were as eager as they say to discuss the Selective Employment Tax in greater detail—

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I am.

Mr. Foot: He says he is. All right, let him persuade his own Front Bench to put down a Motion saying that there shall be sittings in the mornings. Let him do that. We were told they would do it. Let us start that way. Till he and his hon. and right hon. Friends do that, I hope they will not expect us to take them seriously.

Mr. Rees-Davies: If we were to ask the 'Opposition Front Bench to accept sitting in the morning, which would be a very great hardship to many of us, but which, I am certain, we are willing to accept, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to get his hon. Friends on the back benches and his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench, too, to sit to 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning as well if need be.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss morning sittings in general, only morning sittings as related to this timetable Motion.

Mr. Foot: It was a very problematical proposition which the hon. Gentleman put to me, for I have no influence with my hon. Friends at all. All I am saying is exactly what I think. If the Opposition were to make proposals for sitting in the mornings, combined with the Government's proposals for limiting the time on the Bill, I think that that would be a proper matter to be considered, but it should have been considered already, for that is what the Opposition wanted, and the usual channels have been operating throughout this period.
I am sure that when my right hon. Friend met the Opposition, through the usual channels, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield, West, could have said, "Well, speaking for the official Opposition I think that we should have, instead of three days, four days—two of them including the morning ". I am sure my right hon. Friend would have been prepared to consider it, but I do not suppose that the Opposition put that forward at all, but till they do let them not come to us and say that they are eager to have more time devoted to this matter, and let us have no more crocodile tears on the back benches, or Front Bench crocodile tears, either, with protestations that they


passionately want these matters to be further debated, because we know, and the country knows, that they apparently are more eager to transact business in the mornings than to come here to discuss the business of the House.
Therefore, the real test of the sincerity of hon. Gentlemen opposite is whether they will use their influence to have put upon the Notice Paper Amendments of the kind my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West has put down and which, unfortunately, for some obscure reason, Mr. Speaker, have not been selected. This is how they could have brought this debate alive. This is how they could have proved their sincerity. Because they have not done so it seems more sensible that this debate should end right now.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: I do not propose to go into the question of timetable Motions in general, nor do I intend to ventilate political animosities, as the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has accused some of us on this side of doing. All I would say on the hon. Member's statement about morning sittings is that it entirely ignored the duties of Scottish Members of the House, who are sitting in the mornings in any case.
The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) happens not to be on the Scottish Standing Committee which is at present sitting, but most of us are occupied in the mornings. I think that the hon. Member will recognise immediately that if the Scots were to be unable to attend debates in this Chamber because they were dealing with Scottish legislation—as they are doing—in Committee in the mornings, then we should, naturally, greatly object.
I intend to speak on the Motion which is before us now, and about its effect on Scotland. When the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House announced it in the House, on Thursday, it seemed incredible that a timetable should be imposed on this kind of Bill, and that only three days should be allowed for the Committee stage. It is on that that I wish to speak. The Selective Employment Payments Bill is a phenomenal Bill. It is a system of taxation which is quite

unlike any other which has been brought forward.
One of the phenomena is that for many it is not to be a tax at all. Many are to receive premiums instead of paying tax. Under the Finance Bill which we have been considering all employers are to pay the tax on their employees; it is to be levied on them; but to a great many the tax will be returned, and to others it will be returned with a premium. It is the basis of the selectivity of the tax which is vital.
Although, under the Finance Bill, everybody is to make a forced loan to the Government for a number of months, it matters a great deal to different kinds of industry and to different categories of person whether they are in the categories which will be refunded or to whom the premiums will be paid. It is the S.E.P. Bill, which is the subject of this guillotine Motion, under which repayments can he made, and under which it is to be decided to whom the repayments and the premiums are to be paid. The Bill is, therefore, an essential part of the tax, and I agree entirely with all those hon. Members who have already spoken and have pointed out that the S.E.P. Bill is part of the Finance Bill. It is the S.E.P. Bill which will decide upon whom the full burden of the tax will fall, and for whom, in contrast, handouts, a bonanza, will be paid.
The House will not be surprised when it hears that I am concerned particularly with the areas of Scotland where the burden of this tax will fall most heavily because of the absence of manufacturing industry, the kind of industry which is to receive the premiums—which is to be not only to be paid back, but to receive something extra; in fact, not to be affected by the tax in any other way than that of being forced to make a loan, and then to receive back more than it paid.
The Scottish figures which the Treasury gave about seven weeks ago made it clear that once payments of the premiums had been made, the tax would fall more heavily, per employee in the Highlands and Islands, the seven crofting counties for which the figures were given, than anywhere else in the country.
When I asked the Leader of the House, on Thursday last, if he could make sure,


before tabling this timetable Motion, that there would be adequate time for consideration of those problems in particular, he replied:
 The…. Bill is not concerned with the raising of the taxation, but with the repayments ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1966; Vol. 731. c. 1730.]
But the whole point about the Bill is that, till it is decided how and to whom the repayments are to be made, including the premiums, it is impossible to assess how heavily the tax will fall on different categories, and different areas of the country. When it is proposed, as it is under this system, that about three-quarters of all the money to be collected is then to be paid out again, paid back, the incidence of the tax depends entirely on the question of who will receive those repayments, and that is what is to be decided under the S.E.P. Bill.
I think, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman's answer to me on Thursday last showed lack of basic comprehension of the position in which we are now placed. It is the Bill to which this timetable Motion refers which will govern the weight with which the tax will fall on different areas, and the figures which the Chief Secretary gave in a Written Answer seven weeks ago show that it will fall very heavily upon the Highlands and Islands —and is likely to fall similarly on the North of Scotland as a whole.
In my speech during our debates on the Finance Bill, I christened the S.E.T. the "Scottish Emigration Tax"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must link his remarks with the timetable. He is criticising the Bill at the moment.

Mr. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is because of the effects on the area about which I speak that we wish to be certain that there will be time under the timetable for these points to be raised.
The Government are always very keen on plans. We are told that any collection of proposals which they put forward is a plan. Sometimes we are told that it is purposive planning. I can assure the Government that their Selective Employment Payments Bill will soon be called in Scotland the "Scottish Emigration Plan".
Since the Bill was published, the Government have already made several changes, as a result of arguments which they have heard and which have been mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), in favour of charities, the extractive industries, agriculture, forestry, and so on. In all those cases, the tax is to be levied under the Finance Bill, but the question of an industry's exemption depends upon whether it is to be repaid. In all those cases, the Government have said, "We will make sure that they are repaid in the Selective Employment Payments Bill"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is still on the merits of the Bill rather than whether we should prepare a timetable.

Mr. Campbell: I intend to relate this to the position under the Finance Bill and the Guillotine, Sir.
I was going on to say that the Government have already heard some cases and changed their minds, and, unless they have an opportunity to listen and he persuaded about other cases which hon. Members raise, there can be no chance of similar arrangements being made for repayment under the Bill. Under the Finance Bill, all are to have the tax levied on them. What really matters is who is to have it repaid under the guillotined Bill.
Morning sittings have been suggested, but my proposal is that we should sit on further into August. I am not against the idea of timetable Motions in general, though I believe that they should be used very rarely and with great care. In this case, we should be given more time, and we should be able to agree upon the number of days in which the business could be dealt with. [Interruption.] In response to that remark, made from a sedentary position, I would say that, as Scottish Whip for the Government, and when I have been in opposition, in the Scottish Committee and in the House, I have often been able to reach agreement amicably as to how far we should get on a particular matter by a certain time. From remarks which have been made today, both sides of the House agree that that is the kind of objective at which we should aim.
To say that all the Committee stage of the Bill should be concluded in three


days, when we could take a few more days into August on what is a very important matter, is quite unjustified. This is much too important a matter on which to spend so short a time, and it is one which especially affects everyone who is in business or in employment in areas like the North of Scotland.
If anyone doubts my sincerity, I can assure him that it will be more agreeable for me to be discussing the Bill in August in the House than to spend August and September at home in the North of Scotland among those who will bear the burden more heavily than elsewhere, because of the little in the way of repayments due to them under the Bill at present having not had the full opportunity to persuade the Government to make the necessary alterations.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: When the history of the decline and fall of the nation comes to be written, this debate will merit at least one small footnote, because I cannot imagine any greater lunacy than spending the whole of one day discussing how we should spend a few more days. There is really no limit to how far we could go. We could have a Motion to limit the time that we spend discussing today's Motion to limit the time we spend discussing today's Motion to limit the time we spend discussing today's Motion, and so on.
I know that longer-serving Members than I get hot under the collar when new Members criticise the House, but when we talk in our constituencies about time-wasting procedures, how can we keep a straight face when constituents point to today's futility?
It would have been far better had some arrangement been made between the two Front Benches, with the participation of my own party, to take part of this debate on the Selective Employment Tax in the mornings. I would remind the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) put forward the suggestion during Questions only last week that we should have morning sittings on the Selective Employment Payments Bill.
The Government seem rather surprised by the great number of Amendments which have been tabled. On the first Clause, there are 63 Amendments, 13 of

which are in my own name. As the timetable is scheduled, we shall not even have time to debate all my own Amendments, let alone those which have been put down by other hon. Members on both sides of the House. The fact is that many of the Amendments are of immense importance to all constituencies. Although the Government may be surprised to find that there is greater opposition to the Bill on this side than on the benches behind them, it is because this is the first tax which has been angled for a political reason.
It is statistically true that the Conservative and Liberal-held seats will bear a much greater part of the burden of the tax than Labour held seats. I believe that this is probably the first time that a tax has been calculated for political reasons.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are now drifting again into the merits or demerits of the Bill instead of debating the necessity of a timetable.

Mr. Pardoe: I stand corrected on that, Mr. Speaker, but the major point which I am trying to get across is that the reason why we are angry—and we have been accused of synthetic anger—is because it affects our constituencies very badly.
There has been some reticence on the Conservative benches about obstruction. The right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said that he would not practise obstruction on the Bill. But I want passionately to obstruct it for as long as I can, and that is the reason why I oppose the Motion. There have been several major changes made to the Bill already, and the longer we can delay it the more chance there is of getting a few more.
The whole of this discussion, and the debate on the Selective Employment Tax, when it comes, will be entirely irrelevant. The Government cannot honestly introduce this major deflationary measure in the autumn on top of the measures which it will be introducing later this week. It will heap deflation upon deflation, and the most appalling crisis will occur. It would be far better if the Government were to postpone the Bill entirely—to rewrite it, preferably—until they know the likely effects of those other measures which they intend to introduce.
I would remind the Government that, however much they accuse some hon. Members on this side of synthetic anger, they cannot in my own case. In my constituency, there are two towns which, on a statistical analysis of this tax, are the two hardest-hit in the whole country. The measures which the Government are to announce later in the week will hit my constituencey very hard, but this tax will hit it even harder, and chronic unemployment will occur.
I believe that the Government should take back the Bill. If they cannot take it back, they should allow sufficient time for its proper discussion. It is not a good Bill now, and it will not be a good Bill, not matter how long we discuss it. But we may make it just a little better.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I was very sorry that during the initial stages of the debate, when you ruled on the Amendment which I had tabled, I was engaged in another part of the building in a Committee, and so was prevented from being here, because I would have attempted, rightly or wrongly, to make some kind of protest, not at your selection, but at the fact that my Amendment did not happen to be selected.

Mr. Speaker: I am glad that the hon. Member puts it so charmingly. He cannot possibly protest at the selection made by the Chair. This is a responsibility which the House gives the Chair.

Mr. Hamilton: I understand that, and I have made my point.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) that in principle everybody in this House opposes timetable Motions. As a guardian within certain limitations, of the rights of back benchers, I think that any move which increases the power of the Executive over the rights of back benchers is to be deplored in general terms. I think that a timetable Motion wholly favours the Executive. All that the Executive does is to sit tight and watch the clock. It does little more than that. It need not answer the arguments. It need not even listen to them. It just watches the clock.
All parties are guilty of this kind of thing, and the very fact that every Government have on occasion to introduce

a guillotine Motion is a reflection on the absurdities of the Parliamentary timetable in general. We have too little time, and too much to say and to do. This is the argument put forward by all Governments, but it must be very difficult for the public to understand this argument when they know, and we know, that some time in August maybe, we shall get out of this place and clear off for September and the greater part of October, and this at the time when we are calling on trade unionists and everybody outside for increased productivity, and asking them to get their noses nearer to the grindstone than they have them at the moment. It is very difficult for people outside this Chamber to understand this point of view, which is put forward by successive Governments.
I listened to the synthetic protests of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) last Thursday, when he spoke of his willingness to sit on. He presumed to be speaking for his party, but he should have seen the faces of his hon. Friends when he said that. Had he done so, he would have modified his views somewhat. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman having said that he was prepared to sit on through August, September and October if need be, I was very surprised, on looking at the Order Paper, not to see an Amendment by either the Conservative or the Liberal Party to provide for morning sittings. If the Official Opposition had tabled such an Amendment, presumably Mr. Speaker would have selected it for debate, and the House would have got its way against the Government Front Bench. It was precisely because they knew that that would happen that they did not table the Amendment.
I hope that before long the Select Committee on Procedure will put before the House a proposal for morning sittings, at the very least for an experimental period, then we will see whether the Conservatives really want them. The fact is that they do not, because they have business interests outside which they want to look after in the mornings. They are therefore fundamentally opposed to any attempt to bring the hours of sitting more into line with practice outside, and more into conformity with common sense.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the


case for sitting in the afternoon when the House would otherwise be on holiday is different from the case for sitting in the morning when a substantial number of Members are in Standing Committees upstairs?

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is not as naive as that. He knows that the basic reason why Conservatives do not want, and never have wanted, morning sittings is because they have business and commercial interests outside the House, and they do not want them interfered with. They take priority, and this House is a secondary consideration.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: My hon. Friend will remember that there has been only one case in recent history when the House of Commons decided to sit as a Committee in the morning, and that on that occasion the Conservative Party, every man jack of it, voted against it.

Mr. Hamilton: I think that that is probably true, but my hon. Friend knows that they were very reluctant to have morning sittings. They objected to them in principle, even though it was a very important Bill.
I can understand the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) being angry about this tax. It is a new tax. The Bill widens the tax base, and anything revolutionary in this regard is opposed by the Conservative and Liberal Parties, despite all their arguments and protestations to the contrary.
The important point to remember is that the arguments for and against this tax have been debated ad nauseam on the Finance Bill. If the official Opposition got their way, they would only repeat the arguments which have already been put forward. The right hon. Member for Enfield once again did his little sums. He divided the number of Amendments by the amount of time allocated, and said that it was equivalent to five minutes per Amendment. He was assuming, of course, that all the Amendments would be called. If one went through any Bill, be it a Finance Bill or any other, and added up the Amendments and said, "All right, we will allow an average of half an hour per Amendment", we would get half a dozen Bills in the whole Session. The right hon.

Gentleman's argument is therefore fallacious.
I think that the timetable is adequate for rational and sensible discussion of the Bill. I think that it is an arguable proposition—and I am sure that many hon. Members on this side would agree with me—that where there is a major controversial Bill there is a sound case for the two Front Benches getting together to see wheher they can agree a timetable.
My proposition for a Finance Bill would to some degree relate to this Measure. It is simply that one takes the number of hours spent on the Committee stage over the last 10 years, and the Government then say, "The Finance Bill next year will have as many hours devoted to it in Committee upstairs as have been devoted to it on average over the last 10 years". If a timetable for highly controversial Bills such as this were agreed by the two Front Benches, the debates on them would he much more fruitful than they are at the moment.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North, said that had a timetable not been introduced he would have obstructed the Bill. He is entitled to do that, but, equally, the Government are entitled to safeguard their position, because, rightly or wrongly, they think that this is a good Bill, and they have been elected to govern. During the Second Reading debate I said that it was basically a sound tax, but that it had rough edges. I see that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North is trying to intervene, but I know what he is going to say. I believe that it is a good tax. But, even if I do not, the Government think that it is a good tax, and they have a right to get their legislation through the House. Thus, if the Opposition and the Government do not agree a timetable, the Government have every right to impose one. That is what they are doing now, but I regret that they did not include morning sittings, and that they did not make provision to go on further into August than they have done.

7.30 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: I will not comment on the remarks of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) about morning sittings, or the arguments for and against


this type of taxation, because I do not believe that that is what the debate is about. I was astonished to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the timetable was adequate for a sensible discussion to take place. Perhaps, on reflection, he will let us know what we are to discuss. I do not know and that is one of the main points I wish to raise.
I was disappointed at the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who shaped up to make what I thought was a speech taking an independent line. The hon. Gentleman frequently argues strongly and on this occasion I agree with him about the importance of bringing power to the Floor of the House. He spoke about the need for back benchers to force their will on Front Benchers and he objected to the Guillotine Motion. However, he quickly added, in effect, "Not this time" —simply because it suited his side. Entertaining though his speeches always are, on this occasion his contribution was nothing more than a cloud of hot air.
Earlier, two of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale chided my hon. Friends and said that if we appealed on behalf of the rights of back benchers we would have more chance of convincing hon. Gentlemen opposite and of getting their support. I was surprised to hear that, because what is this debate about if it is not about the right of back benchers to speak? After all, we know that the Front Benchers will speak. They always do. On this occasion, it will be the back benchers who will be cut out, and I intend to test that position shortly.
I understand the position of this or any other Government in wanting to get their legislation through as quickly as possible. However, "as quickly as possible" is a relative term. It might mean a very long time. When a Government are trying to get their legislation through as quickly as possible, and with as little discussion as possible, that is a totally different proposition.
No hon. Member can deny—and least of all the Government—that S.E.T. is a revolutionary tax which, rightly or wrongly, is causing vast discontent, and that there are many anomalies. Those anomalies are precisely what we want to discuss. In these circumstances, it is

sanctimonious hypocrisy for the Leader of the House to suggest that this guillotine Motion will improve the standing of the House of Commons.
The Leader of the House suggested that we were going to waste time debating procedural matters. But we have not even started debating. With over 400 Amendments on the Notice Paper, including many from the benches opposite, it is surely an insult to say that back benchers intend to discuss only procedural matters. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Motion and the timetable would enable Parliament to concentrate on selected important points so as to get the legislation through quickly. I want to know who decides what are the important points. Is it entirely a matter for the Government? Is it done through the usual channels? Certainly, I have not been consulted as a back bencher, nor, I suppose, has any other back bencher.
What are the important points? As we know, these things are not always apparent. Sometimes one spends a great deal of time trying to do things that seem really worth while and important and often one gets nowhere. The little things often turn out to be the most important.
I presume that after today's debate there will be a vote and I will, having judged the issue, cast my vote. I also suppose, although I am not certain, that the Leader of the House or another responsible Minister will reply to the points raised during this debate. Whoever replies may satisfy me about the important points that will be debated. Perhaps his views will agree with mine. If so, then, logically, T will have no base for voting against the Government. However, that cannot be done unless I give some examples of what I think are the important points, so that whoever replies will be able to clear my mind on these issues. I will give only half a dozen examples, and in doing so—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is embarking on a dangerous course. He must link what he has to say to the timetable.

Captain Elliot: May I seek your advice on this, Mr. Speaker? In making his speech the Leader of the House said that the debate would concentrate on the


important points in the Bill. Until I hear just what are those important points, I cannot decide how to vote and the Minister who replies cannot convince me —that is, unless I put to him the points which I consider to be important.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will have his questions answered when the Bill is debated, but not in the debate on the timetable.

Captain Elliot: I accept your Ruling Mr. Speaker, but with the greatest respect to the Chair, it seems that in today's debate I am prevented from putting forward the points which I think are important and to which the Government should give an answer and that, when the Bill is debated—considering the timetable—it is highly unlikely that I shall get a chance to do so then. I can only describe this as tyrannical and dictatorial and the logical outcome of Socialism. I have no alternative, therefore, but to conclude now and to withdraw from the Chamber in protest.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: I intend to adopt the apparently unusual course of endeavouring to discuss the subject of the Motion before the House, having listened patiently to remarks about the woes of the North of Scotland—which I am sure exist in the minds of the hon. Gentlemen opposite who have made those comments—and to speeches on similar topics.
There is an important principle underlying this Motion and guillotine Motions of this sort. On the one hand, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) described this debate as an utter waste of time because, he said, we could hardly explain it to our constituents. At first sight, that is so. I say "at first sight" because all hon. Members are aware that the Opposition —any Opposition—feels that their rights are being curtailed—as indeed they are—when a Motion of this character is presented, and any Opposition are bound strenuously to oppose any guillotine Motion.
That is what is happening now, and what will probably continue to happen all night—-or may continue to happen—[Interruption.] With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), I am not responsible

for the time taken by the Opposition. That is a matter for them.
The practice of all Oppositions in these circumstances is to oppose guillotine Motions—and quite rightly. In principle, from their point of view, these Motions are bad. But it seems to me that it is almost impossible to explain the reasons for them—and here I think that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North had a point —to the average member of the public. What I am greatly concerned about is that the resultant division of opinion between constituents—irrespective of party—and Members of the House—who do know what is going on—is one of the things that is tending to bring this House into disrepute. About that, we should all be gravely concerned, irrespective of which side we sit on now or may be sitting on some other occasion.
We understand the reasons for this debate, but what we should be considering now is not when we should be going into the Summer Recess, or morning sittings—though such subjects are worth consideration—hut why we have this timetable Motion. The reason for the Motion is that 300 or 400 Amendments have been tabled for discussion during the Committee stage of the Selective Employments Payments Bill. It has been suggested that that is a tactic of Opposition, but it could be suggested that, bearing in mind the number of industries affected by the Bill, many of these Amendments would be justified. The Motion, however, is to enable the Government to get the Bill through in three days instead of the many more days that would be required to discuss such an enormous number of Amendments.
It is here that I part company from my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who says that we want all the time to bring matters on the Floor of the House. To my mind, we have here Government and Opposition struggling with a procedure that is bad. We should be able reasonably to discuss Amendments to this Bill in Standing Committee. Nearly all our legislation, including the Finance Bill, should be discussed in Standing Committee, and should never be taken on the Floor of the House at all—

Sir D. Glover: I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, because


I do not disagree with a good deal of what he says. I assure him, however, that had this Bill gone to a Standing Committee, after about three days the Government would have brought it to the Floor of the House and we should have been discussing this Motion, because they would have wanted the Guillotine procedure.

Mr. English: The reason for that is precisely my next point. Why do we discuss the minutiae of legislation on the Floor of the House? Our Standing Orders recognise that the Committee stage ought to be dealt with in Standing Committee—a positive Motion has to be moved to have the Committee stage taken on the Floor of the House.
In principle, the detailed amendment of Bills is not a subject for this Chamber. What we want to discuss here are major issues of principle, major issues on Bills —perhaps the principles of really important amendments. We do not want detailed discussion of the minute details of amendments to Bills which face us with consequences of which this Motion is one. We cannot do that in this House, because our Standing Committee procedure is in itself bad. I suggest that it would be well worth the Select Committee on Procedure considering not whether and how it can take four minutes off the time necessary to divide the House, but the basic function of the House of Commons.
Our basic function is to legislate. We are now trying to Provide a time-table for action to be taken on the Floor of the House which should not be taken on the Floor of the House at all. It would be much better if the Committee on Procedure were to consider legislative procedure in Standing Committee so that such circumstances as we now have could never occur again. Quite frankly, as I am sure that hon. Members opposite would wish as well, it would be better if we were now discussing at greater length the Selective Employment Payments Bill—or other Bills that come before us—rather than such a Motion as this. The Opposition should have their right to deal effectively with Amendments, and we should be able to bring to the Floor of the House major amendments of principle, and the whole principle of the Bill itself.
That is precisely how the American House of Representatives works. In conversation, we often quote the American Senate—where there is not even a proper Closure—but we should quote the House of Representatives, which is a body much more similar to our own House. The House of Representatives sends Bills straight to a Committee and they have much smaller Committees where Amendments can be sensibly discussed, but Representatives are allowed to put Amendments even though they are not members of that Committee. That is an important point. The Bill is then brought to the Floor of the House, where Amendments of major principle may be rediscussed. Had we followed that procedure last year with the Finance Bill, we might have had, for example, on the Floor of the House, an Amendment on the principle of the Corporation Tax and on the Capital Gains Tax, but we would not have dealt in detail with every sentence, word and comma of the Bill. The House of Representatives then discusses the principle of the Bill.
It would be much better for us, and for the repute of this House outside, if we had a more sensible legislative procedure rather than that—for reasons which we all understand in this House—we spent our time in what people outside would consider to be rather futile discussion of the time we should take to discuss something.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has emphasised the procedural aspects of the debate, but I shall not follow him or any of his predecessors into a discussion on procedure as, for me, this is a matter that concerns my constituents very considerably. That is that fact that makes this timetable Motion perhaps rather different from some others. One thing that any time spent in a Government Whip's office teaches us is that the Government are under a necessity to get their business, particularly at this time of year. That I fully accept. The difference here is the gravity of this type of legislation, and the care with which its details need to be examined.
Two kinds of Bill can be subject to the Guillotine. In the one case, the


subject matter may not be important but happens to be a vehicle for party conflict. The conflict develops in Standing Committee where, perhaps, the Opposition are seeking to obstruct for purposes not solely connected with the Bill. The need for the imposition of a timetable is then perfectly clear, and the Government use their majority.
There are, however, other Bills which, by their very nature, touch many different interests and will quite clearly have very wide and unpredictable repercussions. Such Bills give rise to many Amendments, and often during their passage more arid more difficulties come to light. The Government of the day are faced with the problem of trying to get the Bill, while the Opposition have a very great number of points that need to be discussed. In this case, it is important to get consensus if we can, through the usual channels, not as to fact of the timetable—because the Government can insist on that—but as to what is a reasonable time to cover the great amount that will have to be discussed.
I can remember in the last Parliament but one the question of a timetable for the London Government Bill. I remember thinking as a Whip that the sooner the timetable started, the better because so many interests were concerned that the balance of debate would be better achieved for hon, Members on both sides who wished to make important constituency points and points dealing with many subjects and Departments. The only essential matter was to decide in advance to make the timetable as generous as possible so that there should be no question of truncating and excluding matters which needed discussion.
I should have thought it manifestly obvious that the time suggested by the Government is unrealistic. The Leader of the House, in opening the debate, mentioned that we have accepted limitations on our procedures in different ways. He instanced the Prayer procedure in which discussion of a Prayer is limited usually to one and a half hours. There are 31 Amendments suggested to this Motion, where we seek a definite allocation of time to various grouped discussions which cover some of the subjects and interests which have been raised with us by constituents or which are obvious under the circumstances of the Bill. Looking

through the grouped lists, it does not seem that anyone could say that each was not fully worth the amount of time usually given to a Prayer. In the 30 or more subjects there we have a potential need for 40 hours' debate, which would be perfectly proper. If the Government were to make their answers that would be the minimum time required.
The Amendments we have put down are not necessarily exhaustive. Neither are the Amendments to the Bill itself, numerous as they are. For example, to the Bill itself we have put down only one Amendment dealing with a subject which I know is dear to your heart, Mr. Speaker —education. It would he perfectly possible to put down a whole string of Amendments to cover important aspects of that great field. The effect of the Bill will go most unevenly across the field of education. It is the same with various other Amendments. I know of several important points which need to be decided but which are not yet the subject of specific Amendments.
It may be that all this would take time if it were properly discussed but the Government have only themselves to blame if they find themselves in grievous need of time now. It would have been perfectly possible to bring in this type of tax by taking power, if necessary, to be selective, but simply to start with a flat rate. The Government could have got its yield and it would have had a marked deflationary effect. Because they are seeking suddenly to provide all these variations which make up the whole theme of this Bill, we are faced with so many anomalies and difficulties. The reasons for extending the time are overwhelming.
I should have thought that the first requirement we as Parliamentarians ought to have in the front of our minds is the quality of the legislation we pass. A Labour Government seem to judge their productivity by the sheer volume of legislation put out and not by its quality. From some of the remarks made this afternoon it would seem that once a Bill has got the Royal Assent, the Government can wash their hands of it and consider that that is another milestone passed. One knows that in fact that is only the beginning of the story, and usually the beginning of the trouble.
The Leader of the House quoted Mr. Chuter Ede as saying that in his opinion legislation could never be too swift. Recent events have shown that that is a very dangerous maxim to follow. We have had some legislation in these last two years which has blotted the Statute Book and from which we are now getting a great deal of trouble. In passing, I refer to the current effects of the Finance Act, 1965. This year we did not have enough time even to discuss some of the matters arising from last year's Finance Act which urgently need consideration and decision.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said, the Inland Revenue is immensely overburdened at the moment. There is evidence of that at high level and low level. The burden of this method of tax collection and operation has had to be transferred to another Government Department. The legislation is itself not clear, and many decisions and rulings have not been publicly given. An enormous volume of inquiry will be directed at the Ministry's local branches but no answers will be obtainable on the record to guide the officials concerned or the members of the public making inquiries.
If when this great brainchild was born—as it may have been, after dinner —even the humblest Parliamentary delegation had been present to have the idea put to it, I am quite sure that any group of Members chosen at random could have set out many of the anomalies and difficulties which were likely to arise and for which there was needed careful preparation and decision. Now this process is having to be done in this House, and largely at the instance of the Opposition.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that this tax was welcomed generally throughout the country. If he really believes that, he has a shock coming to him. It may be that there was some relief after the Budget Statement when it was known that there would be no direct impact on the voter's pocket. There may have been a sigh of relief, but what the voter may not have realised was that the Chancellor had put a time bomb in that pocket which will go off later in the year. This must concern employers

and people who have to plan and manage business. They are anxious to know exactly what their position will be.
The result is that most of us have had a large volume of detailed correspondence in respect of this Bill. It is not a mass of correspondence all saying the same on the same point. Far from it—usually the letters raise cases of anomalies which one would not otherwise have suspected because they arise in, and are special to, some calling or occupation. Most of them have been practical questions which need answering.
If the guillotine Motion is passed in its present form, it will operate, not to shorten debates against the principle of the tax, but to prevent Parliament from doing its proper job of examining and improving the legislation. That need has been admitted by the Government. In winding up the Second Reading debate the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this:
 As to marginal cases that are left. I want to go into those very carefully.
There is not much time to do this under the proposed programme. If the points are not raised and answered in Parliament, doubts and uncertainties will go out from here unresolved. They will clog up the administrative machine and the processes of commerce.
I do not want to be a party to adding to the burden of unproductive work which the Government are piling upon civil servants and on business and professional people. Another group of important officers may well be asking for a bonus for overtime they will have to put in trying to understand, not perhaps the Bill. but its implications. If they can get no guidance from information the Government present to the House, it means further delays and uncertainty for them.
If professional advisers in response to their business clients' inquiries have to say that there is no answer yet, good or bad, the clients will not be able to make decisions as to how to conduct their business. More and more time will be lost by their wondering how to organise or reorganise their business so that they do not expose themselves to some severe tax from which their competitors may escape because of the ill-drawn and vaguely defined borderlines of the Bill. Some are more affected by the Bill than others.
A tri-focal view of the Bill has been presented by someone who, as a Director of the Bank of England, will pay the tax. who, as a member of the National Coal Board, will presumably get it refunded, and who, in a private capacity as a printer, will get the premium. I refer to Mr. King who, if he is anyone's darling, is less the darling of the Right than of the Left. Mr. King described this tax last week as "ill-thought-out and as causing a ludicrous distraction of business effort". This is how confidence is eroded, because in this respect nothing fails like failure. People do not know where they are. They lose all inclination to press ahead with the things they should be doing. Decisions are not taken. Instead, there is a harvest of disappointment, friction and frustration, with little progress. That is what is happening because of some of the defects of earlier legislation.
I am anxious that sufficient time should be given to the Bill to ensure that we do not set up that process again in the constituencies on top of what the last Finance Bill did. If the muddle is added to through a badly finished Bill, the result will be a paralysis of decision. This is the worst possible state to be in if it is desired either to increase productivity or to fight an economic crisis.
The economic situation is changing faster than the Government can react. The Prime Minister keeps giving himself weeks when he has only days for decision. This will affect the Bill. The economic crisis is hound to add to the matters which need arid ought to be discussed as the Bill goes through its later stages. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said this on Second Reading:
As regards bank loans, we had a discussion in the course of the Committee stage of the Finance Bill the night before last. I have nothing to add to what I said then. I said it was too soon yet to give an indication."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 23rd June, 1966; Vol. 730. c. 1049.]
Last Tuesday the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in reply to a Parliamentary Question that the commercial banks will not be given any general dispensation to increase lending in September when the Selective Employment Tax will take about £100 million per month out of the economy and transfer it to the Treasury. The Economist made this comment:
 Very sough though this measure could be, it managed to offend against all three canons for sound present policy "—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the time-table Motion, which is the subject we are discussing tonight.

Mr. Hill: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope to show that that situation has its impact upon the Bill. It raises points that ought to be discussed. The fact that new points are added means that still more time ought to he available.
Since last Thursday when the Guillotine was announced not inappropriately on 14th July—the situation has changed for the worse. The economic storm is growing quicker and harder than the Prime Minister estimated. Yet the effects of the Bill may be on our economic standing as decisive as they are unpredictable. If one could predict what was going to happen, it would be so much easier, but we cannot. As matters stand, as the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) pointed out, under the Bill the Government will be committed to very drastic deflationary action on what we hope will be the farther side of the immediate crisis. This merits more time for the discussion of the Amendments which are relevant to this feature.
Last, but certainly not least, some regard should be paid to the difficulties of the Chair. With the time allotted, it is asking too much of Solomon himself to group all the Amendments which have been tabled so that they are adequately discussed, in principle, at any rate, and so that opinions can be expressed if desired through the Lobbies.
It could be done with the extra days that we propose should be added. They could be provided. Perhaps the Government would lose a little face if they postponed the Second Readings of the Steel Bill and another Bill—not to the next Session. In the ordinary way we in Parliament are concerned to finish our business by the Summer Recess and avoid overspill, so that we start the new Session in the autumn. There is no question of that this year. We have a whole Parliamentary year ahead of us. There is plenty of time to take any Second Readings, even of the most controversial Bills, after we return and to complete them without difficulty.
There is not time, of course, to get ready in time for party conferences statements that the nation agrees to this and


that in principle, but that is not a worthy consideration this evening. What the Government are asking us, or rather the Chair, to do, is to try to put a gallon into a pint pot. It just will not go. If It is a Money Bill, the Government themselves will lose any chance for their own third thoughts—and they will need some third thoughts. They can have second thoughts on Report, but very often the Government themselves need a stage in the House of Lords and they may well do so in this case with a very quickly-changing situation. They will need an opportunity of further amending the Bill.
If they cannot have that opportunity because this is certified as a Money Bill, surely it is all the more important that we should have spent an adequate amount of time getting the Bill into the best condition possible, if we are the last people to have anything effective to do with it. Whether or not it is a Money Bill in the technical sense, it is certainly a Money Bill in that it will greatly affect people's pockets, their jobs and their lives. It seems to me that unless the Government meet our request, we cannot properly discuss the anxieties and grievances that constituents are putting before us. They are not frivolous or vexatious. They are the anxieties of people who have jobs to do and responsibilities to carry, and they do not know how to order their affairs not only in their own interests but, no doubt, in the interests of the people whom they employ.
As I say, their anxieties are very detailed and practical. They are not airy-fairy. They want answers in order that they can make decisions. Indeed, even an unfavourable answer is to be preferred to no answer at all. They do not even know the worst. If one does not know the worst, one cannot really produce an effective policy. A few days given now would result in a better Bill. It would result in the Government having time to make statements that would guide people in coming to very difficult decisions. More time given now would save much more time later on for many people—perhaps millions. That is why I hope the Government will accede to our request.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. David Winnick: I find it somewhat difficult to believe that

this opposition to the Motion is an Opposition back-bench revolt. In fact, it is organised by the Opposition Front Bench. and I do not believe that we are to take too seriously some of the speeches from the other side of the House. They are the sort of speeches which one expects when the Government of the day introduce a guillotine Motion.
In all frankness, I say that I am not surprised. I am trying to be as honest as possible. If we on these benches sat on the opposite side of the House, no doubt our reactions would be more or less the same. Nevertheless, I find it extremely difficult to believe that this whole campaign against the Motion is organised by back benchers who feel that their time will be too limited to enable them to speak on the Selective Employment Tax. As the Leader of the Opposition made clear during business questions last Thursday, the Opposition Front Bench had already made up their minds that they would oppose the guillotine Motion.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Is the hon. Member saying that he has not got a whole volume of important practical matters which have been sent to him by his constituents to which he looks like being able to give no answer?

Mr. Winnick: I think that it would be true to say that nearly every hon. Member has got various matters concerned with the Selective Employment Tax and other matters which have been the subject of correspondence, but is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that every hon. Member who has views on this subject should be in a position to speak? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] If hon. Members will listen to me, they will find that I have some comments to make on the inability of Members to debate various matters, and not just the Selective Employment Tax.
What will happen tonight is that we shall have a very long sitting; no doubt, it will go on till the early morning, and afterwards the Opposition will consider that they have been doing a very fine, effective job as an Opposition. They will be patting themselves on the back as we all go home at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning. But the people outside this House will not be impressed one little bit.
I have been here for only a short time, and I confess my inexperience compared


with that of others who have been in this House for a long time, but one of the dangers and weaknesses of this institution, the House of Commons, is that we tend to live in a sort of closed political community. We believe that those things which tend to impress us, the victories and the defeats, have some kind of symbol outside the House. I regret to say that to a large extent this is not so.
Sir D. Glover rose—

Mr. Winnick: I always like to give way.

Sir D. Glover: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. What I do not understand is his theme that it does not matter if there is no publicity attached to it. We have a job of work to do in this House, whether there is publicity or not.

Mr. Winnick: It is not a question whether or not there is publicity. T am sure that hon. Members can get their speeches reported in the local Press. But that is riot the point. We tend at times to be so impressed by certain victories and defeats and other matters in a very closed political community like this House that we believe that it has some effect on people outside. This is not so. I believe that many people find it extremely difficult to understand why we have all-night sittings, or near all-night sittings. They are not particularly impressed by us going home at 4 and 5 o'clock in the morning, or even later.
Many people are extremely worried especially by Press articles and editorials and television coverage about our economic situation. This is understandable. People are worried, to whichever political party they belong, or whether they belong to no political party at all. What they expect—and this is what I would expect if I were not an active politician—is that the House of Commons should be debating the economic situation, and should not be involved in a long procedural wrangle concerning the length of time certain matters should be debated. Perhaps this is the fault of people outside, but they find it extremely difficult to understand many of our procedures and the ways in which we involve ourselves in debates which cause a great deal of controversy, which

I stress seem to have very little effect outside the House.
On the question of time, I have found, for example, that on very controversial matters, whether it be a foreign policy debate on Vietnam or a debate on our incomes policy, many Members who want to speak cannot catch Mr. Speaker's eye, certainly through no fault of Mr. Speaker. One hon. Member who intervened when I began my speech said that hon. Members should have an opportunity to discuss various problems concerning the Selective Employment Tax. I made the point that it was not possible at the best of times for hon. Members who wished to raise various matters to speak.
What was the position when a number of us wanted to speak in the recent debate on Vietnam? We had a debate. Mr. Speaker announced before the debate started that about 70 Members wanted to speak. Of course, we found that very few back benchers were in a position to participate in the debate.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman may find that the reason he was not called to speak on Vietnam was that the debate was, in fact, about prices and incomes.

Mr. Winnick: No. The hon. Gentleman is in a state of great confusion. On the occasion of our debate on Vietnam, Mr. Speaker announced that 70 Members wanted to speak, and before the debate last Thursday on the Prices and Incomes Bill Mr. Speaker said that there were 70 Members who wanted to speak. The hon. Gentleman ought to know the difference between the debate we had on Vietnam the week before last and the debate on prices and incomes last Thursday.

Mr. Onslow: Mr. Onslow rose—

Mr. Winnick: No, I shall not give way again to the hon. Gentleman.
In common, I am sure, with a number of hon. Members on both sides, I wanted to speak both on Vietnam and on prices and incomes. What is so disturbing—[Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman may laugh, but it is not amusing that on such important issues so few hon. Members can have the opportunity to enter the debate. Many hon. Members opposite are up in arms because, on account of


the timetable Motion, they will not be able to speak on the Selective Employment Tax, but, equally, we should be as greatly concerned that on Vietnam and on prices and incomes so few back benchers were called.
This is why it is necessary, when considering the present Motion, to look at the wider implications of the way in which we organise our debates. It is understandable that a number of hon. Members deeply concerned constituency-wise, perhaps—and political-wise as well—about the effects of the new tax on their areas wish to take part in the debate. But we need to look at this matter not just in the context of the Selective Employment Tax and this Motion, but in the wider context of the many other important matters of home and foreign affairs on which so many Members cannot catch the eye of the Chair purely because of the limitation of time.
I tabled a Question to the Leader of the House a week ago—[HoN. MEMBERS: "0h."] It is not just hon. Members opposite who like to table Questions. Some of us like to avail ourselves of the opportunity, too. I have tabled a Question to the Leader of the House—I hope to have the support of hon. Members opposite—to ask whether, on the Second Reading of important controversial Measures, we can so organise our time that hon. Members have greater opportunities to speak. In my view—I have made the point in my consituency, and I hope that it is understood—when 70 Members want to speak on Vietnam or on prices or incomes, it is rather unfortunate, to say the least, if the end result is that, by and large, eight or 10 back benchers at the most on each side are able to catch the eye of the Chair.
Not everyone, either on this Measure or on anything else, can have an opportunity to speak—it would make a mockery of Parliament—but there ought to be greater opportunity to take part in our debates on various matters. What I find rather deplorable is that hon. Members opposite seem to be concerned only with this particular matter and not with the wider importance of giving more time to Second Readings on important Bills, foreign policy debates and the like.
Here, perhaps, I differ to a certain extent with some of my hon. Friends. I cannot see that the solution lies in morning sittings. There may come a time when morning sittings will be accepted and for certain subjects there might be a case for the odd exception, but, in the short time I have been here, I have found mornings extremely useful to attend to constituency matters, dealing with correspondence, and seeing people. I am by no means certain that morning sittings would provide the solution to our problems. Perhaps hon. Members opposite are concerned not so much with constituency matters in the morning as with dealing with their financial and business affairs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There are many hon. Members opposite who have business interests. [HON. MEMBERS: "And on the Government side."] Some time must be devoted to business or financial affairs. I find it difficult to believe that hon. Members opposite, who have such substantial holdings in various companies, devote Saturday afternoons and Sundays to their business interests. I am sure that a lot of time during the week is devoted to business affairs. As someone with no business interests outside the House, I have found that my mornings are fairly well occupied in dealing with constituency matters.

Mr. Peter Walker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is aware that all members of the Treasury team pursued other occupations when in opposition.

Mr. Winnick: If there were a test to show which side had the more business interests, there would be no doubt that the winners would be on the Opposition side. Does anyone deny that for a moment? Hon. Members opposite should be proud of their close connection with the financial and business world.

Sir Edward Brown: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman ought not to go too far into the City.

Mr. Winnick: Before extending the line of my argument at that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was about to conclude by saying that we need a thorough reform of our Parliamentary procedure. We must understand that so much of what


we discuss here and so many of our victories and defeats have very little impression on people outside. If Parliament is to survive as a live institution respected by the vast majority of people in the country, we must understand and accept the need for change and modernisation not only outside but in the House of Commons itself.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I shall return to the subject of the debate and leave the symposium on Parliamentary reform to which, apparently, we are being treated by hon. Members opposite. This debate today is one of which the House will, in retrospect, be ashamed. It will be ashamed because only three days are to be allocated to the Committee stage of the Selective Employment Payments Bill. [Interruption.] I hope that I may have the hon. Gentleman's attention for a moment I think that he will be interested in what I am saying.

Mr. Donald Chapman: Why pick on me?

Mr. Page: We ought to be ashamed because only three days are to be spent in Committee on a Bill which, more than any other I can remember, touches the working, lives of everyone engaged in any kind of business or commercial occupation except, perhaps for the self-employed. Yet, although the Bill touches all our constituents, only six back benchers on the Opposition side had the chance to take part on Second Reading—only six on a Measure which affects so many of their constituents.

Mr. Winnick: If the hon. Gentleman feels so strongly that only a few Members were able to speak on this Bill, does he feel equally strongly that on the Prices and Incomes Bill only a very few out of the 70 who wanted to speak were able to take part?

Mr. Page: I gave way thinking that there was to be a relevant interruption in connection with the Motion we are discussing, not the Motion on Parliamentary reform, a matter which I should be very willing to discuss with the hon. Gentleman at any other time. It is interesting to note that the hon. Gentleman, who so recently came into the Chamber, is taking part in the debate.
This brings us to another fact which is worthy of note. Throughout the afternoon, there were not more than 12 Members on the benches opposite, except during the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) and the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot)—and now mine. I am glad to be considered among that "First XI" of Parliamentary speakers. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale spoke for 33 minutes. Some have wondered why his intervention was so long. It is of interest that he gave notice to his colleagues on the Government Front Bench that they were not to reimpose National Health prescription charges in the measures which they are proposing to announce on Wednesday. This was a clear warning, and I believe that that was the reason why he intervened.
The Bill touches every kind of business, every commercial firm, all people who work for an employer, the old and the young and the strong and the weak. Our constitutents will be shocked at the very little detailed consideration, Amendment by Amendment and Clause by Clause, which can be given to the problems of their own businesses as they affect them. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking-ham (Mr. van Straubenzee) said that it is a criticism of the House that not enough of our debates are on matters which affect the everyday lives of our constituents. The House and the Government will be blamed because insufficient time has been given.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) put forward the argument that one can just bundle together different trades and professions and auction them in one lot. That is not good enough for the people whose own immediate livelihoods are touched upon by the Bill that we shall be debating. They will be angry about it. The Government know that they will be angry but have taken the clear decision that it is better that the anger of our constituents should be focussed on the Government because insufficient time has been given for the debate rather than that time should be given and the thinness of the arguments of the Government have to be deployed in each and every case.
Many of us when we speak in the House are disappointed that not enough is reported of our speeches on detailed matters. But in this case when Amendments were discussed about the effect of the S.E.T. on different industries, detailed reports of the debate, clearly and concisely, would be shown and would be read throughout the country, and the reasons which the Government give for including or excluding companies as manufacturing companies, to which they give a bonus and which are to suffer, would be given in much greater detail than can be given now since the Guillotine is to be adopted.
It was said this afternoon that the last time the Guillotine was applied to a Finance Bill was in 1931. I want to quote a paragraph from the debate in September, 1931. These are the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in connection with the opening speaker who had proposed a guillotine Motion. The first part is rather chestnut, but the second part is very apposite to our position today. The Leader of the Opposition said:
When he was speaking, there came into my mind the lines of a hymn that I used to try to sing when I was a boy. It is a very good hymn, and I rather think the right hon. Gentleman is fully familiar with it. The words are:
'God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform.'
The words came into my mind when I was trying to unravel the right hon. Gentleman's logic, because a few day's ago the urgency of this Motion, the urgency of passing the Economy Bill and the Finance Bill was that it might thereby prevent the flight from the pound."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th September, 1931; Vol. 256, c. 1,424.]
History is repeating itself in an extraordinary way. As at this day, the last time that the Guillotine was applied to a Finance Bill the country was in a deep financial crisis and a Labour Government one month before had thrown in the sponge because they were quite unable, with their Socialist policies, to get the country's economy into a proper position. It is sorrowful for the country that we find ourselves put by another Labour Government in the same position today.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman: The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) seemed

to regret the fact that what he called a symposium on Parliamentary reform had begun to dominate our discussions today. I shall disappoint him, because I shall return to that theme, and I do so without any apology. What pleases me about the debate today—like my right hon. Friend, I have listened for 15 years to the same speeches made on these Motions, from both sides of the House, and I am fed up to the back teeth, as he is—is that. thank goodness, instead of that somebody has begun to look behind it all and ask whether we are not behaving stupidly and whether it is not time that we stopped the necessity for these things arising. I do not think that we should apologise for seeing this piece of daylight at long last.
I want to go a little further along the road and say that I welcome the guillotine Motion because it may well lead in the autumn or perhaps in the coming year to our considering timetable Motions for legislation as a normal course of events. It will he a very good thing for Parliament when that happens.
I was started on this track today by the remark of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) when he said that he thought that there would arrive a time when every Bill would come to the House with a timetable attached to it. He said this with great approval but added that, unfortunately, it would be long in the future before that would happen. I am sorry about the latter part of his remarks, because that is not necessarily so. If instead of putting that in as an afterthought with obvious approval he would say it more loudly and be willing to say it through the usual channels, none of the difficulty that we are in today would have arisen and we should get out of the trouble more quickly than he ever envisages.
The second reason why I intervene after the right hon. Gentleman had started on this track was that, most astonishingly, nobody has referred today to the suggestions made by the Select Committee on Procedure for getting us out of this sort of jam in respect of Finance Bills. Less than a year ago the Procedure Committee suggested a set of reforms which, as a package deal, was rejected by the Government. But inside that package deal was one item which I would have thought carried a great deal


of approval, judging at least by what I have heard people say.
This was the suggestion—which has had an echo here today—that, whether the Finance Bill was sent upstairs to Committee or kept on the Floor of the House, we should consider setting up a business Committee which would timetable it through all its stages, having heard representations from both sides about the amount of time needed. This is the way forward to reform. The Committee suggested that, instead of there being a Government-imposed timetable, as on occasions like this, a high-minded and impartial Committee, composed mainly of Chairmen of Committees and hon. Members selected by Mr. Speaker, would listen to evidence from both Government and Opposition about the time each thought was needed. The Committee would then try to strike a middle path and recommend a fair amount of time.
The package deal was rejected by the Government for technical reasons but that part of it should be kept in mind and revived not only in dealing with the Finance Bill but with other Bills as well which cause great division in the Chamber and country. That would be a sensible way out, because it would not allow us to complain that the time of the House was so obviously dictated by the Government and nor could the Government complain that the Opposition were able to talk a thing to death. It would mean that an attempt would be made seriously to find the middle way in consumption of time.
Quite differently from the right hon. Member for Enfield, West, I do not believe that this is a long way in the future. I hope that it is on its way. The Select Committee on Procedure usually finds its Reports adopted six years later. Perhaps we might speed the process up in this case.
I would say, further, that this is nothing new. The extraordinary thing is that Standing Order No. 43 very largely facilitates this whole procedure because it deals with the setting up of a "business committee". It even refers to that committee in similar terms to those used by the Select Committee on Procedure in that it would consist of members of the Chairmen's Panel and hon. Members nominated by Mr. Speaker. Standing

Order No. 43 says that the Committee may, if it thinks fit, timetable a Bill in respect of which a Minister of the Crown reports to the House that agreement on total time has been reached between the usual channels. Why do we not do that now?
It should have been possible on this occasion for the Government and the Opposition to meet and say, "It looks as though we can agree on seven or eight days". The obvious way to facilitate this is to use Standing Order No. 43 (b), bringing it into operation for the first time. We should begin to get somewhere in proper and free discussions towards a fair arrangement of total time as between both sides of the House.
This debate has become a symposium on Parliamentary reform. The Select Committee on Procedure tried to point the way forward in the last Session with its report on the Finance Bill. This experience will hit many new hon. Members as extraordinary. They will be amazed that we should spend a whole day like this and, indeed, a night as well. I am sure that more hon. Members will join those of us who wish for reform and say, "This is the kind of way forward to avoid such occurrences as this debate in future".
What would be lost by such a new procedure? The Government would lose some control over the House in the sense that the amount of time to be devoted to Committee or Report stages would not be what the Government said it should be. It would be what the business Committee, having heard both sides, assessed would be fair. What would the Opposition give up? It would give up one important thing—the idea of using the weapon of time, of wearing Government supporters down by physical pressure in being kept here all night and every night. But I think we are moving in that direction already. The Opposition would be giving up a weapon which, they would agree, is not as big as it used to be, is probably not as appropriate as it used to be and is worth giving up in a deal in which the Government would also give up some of their present position.
Giving up this weapon is a continuing process. When we decided that Prayers should take only one and a half hours. that was the biggest change for a long time towards accepting the idea that wear


and tear were no longer a legitimate weapon to be used by an Opposition. What I suggest would be only a further stage along that road which we started when about 10 years ago we limited Prayers to one and a half hours. There would be something to be given up by both sides in this proposal for timetables to be more readily agreed and set out by an elder statesmen timetabling Committee
There remains one other consideration. I say this tentatively, because we are all trying to think aloud in these matters of reforming Parliament. These things are much more difficult than my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) thinks. One of the difficulties is that we all want reform to come, but none of us can agree precisely what the reform should be. There are many snags surrounding every alternative version. However, there is one thing which we could do to facilitate this process of timetabling.
If the Opposition are not going to be more willing to accept voluntary timetables on the lines of Standing Order No. 43, perhaps we could move along the road to making Government-dictated timetables a little less difficult to get. I do not want the Government to be given enormous powers and I do not want them to have the powers of dictation, or to make it too easy for them to be able to get timetable Motions; but perhaps we could have timetable Motions, such as we have today, tabled with the Second Reading of a Bill when there have been no agreements between the usual channels. Such a Motion could be taken for two or three hours after the conclusion of the Second Reading debate. The Government would then more easily get a dictated timetable and, as a result, the Opposition would be more willing to go with the Government into the process of getting a voluntary timetable. That would be the result of making it a little less difficult to get a Government-imposed timetable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I realise that the hon. Member is Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure and that he has great knowledge of and interest in this matter, but he must relate his argument to the question of having a timetable on this Bill.

Mr. Chapman: I was not speaking as Chairman of the Committee, but only as one hon. Member who is puzzled by the need to reform these things and who has spent all day listening to a debate which has in fact become a debate on procedure.
Today's debate has had a salutary effect. It will turn our minds constantly to finding a true reform to end the farcical procedure on Guillotines as we now know them. I hope that it will not be in the distant future that we shall get round to this, as the right hon. Member for Enfield, West suggested. I hope that within a couple of years at the most we shall get a sensible reform such as he mapped out and for which the Procedure Committee showed the way when it reported on the Finance Bill during the last Session.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. John Wells: It has been a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) speaking from his great depth of experience, especially after the extremely brash university lectures from which we suffered earlier in the afternoon. They were boring and presumptuous in the extreme and it was a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member's forward-looking aims and views of the problems which face us all.
Despite his experience I wish that he had listened more closely to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). My hon. Friend mentioned the functions of a back bencher, and, in particular, back benchers on the Opposition side. Even a voluntary timetable of the sort that the hon. Member has outlined will immediately take away from the fundamental rights of the back benchers the ability to question the legislative proceedings of the Government.

Mr. Chapman: If I had had more time I would have dealt with that point, but my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) dealt with this very effectively when he said that the right place for this is in Committee, not on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Wells: I listened very closely to what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said, and I go a long


way in agreeing with him. Although I do not want to incur your wrath Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not think that the American simile of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West was entirely accurate.
To turn to the Motion, every hon. Member would agree that undiscussed legislation is bad, and most of our constituents would agree that nearly all legislation is bad. One has only to go to the Library and to look up Statutes Revised to see that Statutes passed only a few months ago have been revised and altered very rapidly. There is no Statute which remains unrevised for very long. There is a very strong argument against allowing any legislation to go undiscussed. Here is a Motion in which we are proposing to sandwich this important Committee stage into three short days.
The hon. Member for Northfield in discussing the possible timetabling of this, under a notional idea under Standing Order No. 43, said seven or eight days. Yet the Government Front Bench are forcing us to do it in three days. This shows the sheer impracticality of what the Government are suggesting tonight. Not only is undiscussed legislation bad, but one has only to look at the way in which the Guillotine has been used in recent years, for example, in the nationalisation Measures of Lord Attlee's Labour Government, to see that such legislation has been altered and churned about since. To go further back, perhaps the item which has generated more nonparty political steam is gross immorality between males. The Labouchere Amendment slipped undiscussed through this House late at night nearly a hundred years ago.
The Selective Employment Payments Bill, which we are being asked to get through Committee in three days, has in my constituency alone generated more constituency correspondence than any other Measure. I have had interviews with tailors, bakers, electrical contractors, horticulturists, horticultural co-operatives, horticultural spray manufacturers and a score of other sectional interests. All of these sectional interests have Amendments put down, not only by my hon. Friends, but by hon. Members opposite. There are a mass of sectional interests, very reasonably putting forward their claims in the thick volume of Amendments to the Bill.
How can we get through the Bill in three days? I realise that the great bulk of the matter is in Clause 2. Looking at the timetable, I see that the Government propose that the debate on Clause 2 should go for a whole day, and, presumably, a whole night, and until 6.30 p.m., that is, through the rest of the next day. That it should be got through as rapidly as that, with all of the Amendments to it is extremely unlikely. On the selection of Amendments, one of my hon. Friends has said that this would place an intolerable burden upon the Chairman of Ways and Means. They said that he was not Solomon. It has been all too obvious that he is not Solomon.
I hope, therefore, that between now and whenever this debate comes to an end the Government will have second thoughts about this timetable and will accept one of the Amendments lengthening it It is a national disaster for this unattractive Measure to be timetabled before its Committee stage has started. Many of my hon. Friends have stressed, and I cannot repeat it too frequently, that it is the bringing forward of this rigid timetable before the Measure has started its Committee stage which causes us on this side of the House such offence.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. William Hamling: The hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) has made what I would describe as a reasonable speech in the context of this debate. I hope that during my remarks I shall deal with some of his arguments.
I should like to comment on a speech made by an hon. Member opposite who said that this was the first time that the Guillotine has been imposed on a Finance Bill. It is right and proper to point out that we are not discussing the Finance Bill. That Bill has already gone through Committee and will come up for its Third Reading quite soon. We are discussing a consequential Measure which deals with the payments to be made in response to a tax already discussed in detail for many days and approved by the House.

Sir John Hobson: Surely the whole point of the Bill is that the tax bites according to whether a refund or premium is payable under the Bill.

Mr. Hamling: That point has been made many times, even on the Finance Bill. It has been made a thousand times. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads the debates in detail, he will see that that is almost literally true—that that point has been made a thousand times in the last few weeks. As one hon. Member opposite said, too much discussion does a disservice for the Opposition, and there has been too much discussion on many aspects of this matter.
The hon. Member for Maidstone referred to nationalisation Measures introduced by the previous Labour Government. We had one of the most notable examples of the use of the Guillotine on this type of Bill under a Conservative Administration. I refer to the Transport Bill of 1952, which was guillotined and programmed before it started. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) pointed out, there are many precedents for Money Bills being guillotined by Conservative Governments.
Great point has been made about the rights of back benchers. Does the House consider that debates at 3 o'clock in the morning reflect the rights of back benchers? We have had many such debates in recent weeks. How much notice does the public take of them? How much respect does the public have for a Parliament which sits for hour after hour in the middle of the night? Who listens, and are these debates much good? Do debates at 3 o'clock in the morning reflect much credit on hack-bench Members, or even Front-Bench Members? We talk about the contempt which people may have for Parliament.
People say that this is a disgraceful day in the history of Parliament, because we are discussing the programming of a Bill. There are many people outside the House who think that we make ourselves look much more ridiculous by the way in which we carry on many of our debates through the night and for many hours, as we have done on the Finance Bill in recent times.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Has it occurred to the hon. Member that when one is in opposition one learns a lesson which he has not yet had an opportunity of learning—that when moving an Amendment, and speaking to it, what matters is not

what the newspapers will say outside but what is the Government reaction in the House.

Mr. Hamling: I may not have been in the House in opposition, but I spent many years trying to get into the House long before I succeeded. I recollect when the Labour Party were in opposition. I read many debates long before I set foot in the House. The hon. and gallant Gentleman need not give me any lectures on what it feels like to be in opposition. There were many years when I was not only not in opposition but was not even in the House and when I felt that I should like to say something on a great many Amendments.
We have been told that under the Bill we are discussing a new tax. We are not. We are discussing repayments consequential upon it. Hon. Member opposite said that they want to discuss the tax. They have already discussed it for many hours. When people talk about undiscussed legislation and about the Labouchere Amendment, they should remember that long before we had guillotine Motions, legislation or parts of legislation went through the House without being discussed.
Hon. Members talk about finance. Everyone knows that one of the scandals of government is that hundreds of millions of pounds of expenditure go through the House frequently on the nod. This is a far greater scandal than any scandal which has been unearthed by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite during this debate. Some of us on these benches feel that we need a real discussion of money measures.
This is one of the purposes of the Amendments put down in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and myself. We feel that the Government are giving too much time to the discussion of the Bill. They are giving three days and we should prefer them to give two days. In fact, that proposal would lose only three-and-a-half hours, but we should save a day, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend thinks that a day of Parliamentary time gained would be valuable.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While what the hon. Gentleman has said about the Committee stage may or may not be true, may I ask whether he has looked at


the second part of the Motion relating to the Report stage of the Bill? Does he realise that it provides only four-and-a-half hours on Report, in which the Government may move any Amendments consequential on undertakings which [They have given in Committee?

Mr. Hamling: I was discussing the Amendment in relation to the Committee stage and I shall come to the question of the Report stage later. The Opposition have a strange idea of the urgency of public business if, having spent eight days in Committeee, they feel that they need a further two days on Report. That seems a very odd use of Parliamentary time.
But I was talking about the general principles behind the Amendments put down by my hon. Friend and myself. We believe that Members should be full-time Members. I know that it has been said by hon. Members opposite, and that this view is held by some of my hon. Friends., that it is useful for an hon. Member to have other employment. Maybe it is consequential on having a small majority, but I would not know. Certainly, however, my hon. Friend and I believe that membership of this House should be taken much more seriously, and to [he extent that it becomes a full-time job; and this is one of the purposes of our Amendments. After all, it is a reply to the invitation from the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Madleod), who wanted to meet in the mornings. In our Amendments we have taken care of that invitation.
We also support the Amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr), who suggests that speeches on the Bill should be limited to 10 minutes. This is something which, I am sure, will be. widely welcomed. Certainly, when one thinks how many speeches have been made by hon. and right hon. Members opposite on various Clauses of the Finance Bill, 10 minutes each surely ought to be adequate for dealing with many of the points which may be made
The other general principle we would lay down by our Amendments is that this calls for a complete reform of the discussion of money Bills in this House.

Mr. John Wells: Does the hon. Member know that he has been speaking for 11 minutes?

Mr. Hamling: Exactly. Perhaps if I had not been interrupted so much by the Opposition I would not have been speaking quite so long. The other day I was being told off for not giving way. As the hon. Member may read, if he cares to, I said on that occasion that it was because I wanted to make a short speech that I did not want to give way. Today, I have been very generous in giving way, and, in consequence, perhaps I have spoken a little longer than I wished to do.
I would like to see money Bills discussed by a Select Committee upstairs. I think that we would get much more expert discussion if we did.
Another point is that debates on the Finance Bill are so long and so drawn out that the number of back benchers who wish to speak is strictly limited. I have no doubt that a Select Committee of 50 would include all the Members on either side who normally speak in Committee on the Finance Bill, and so there would be no limitation on the rights of back-bench Members. One may ask, for example, how many back benchers will speak in Committee on the Selective Employment Payments Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West wondered how many Members spoke in debate in Committee on the Finance Bill. I direct the same question to the Committee on the Selective Employment Payments Bill, and I have no doubt that the number will be one which could be counted on the fingers of one's two hands.
We should like to see, as a result of this debate, a much more radical reformation of the discussion of Money Bills than has been put forward either by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House or by hon. and right hon. Members on the other side. That is the purpose of our Amendments. We want more effective criticism, we want more informed criticism, the sort of criticism which will be respected outside the House, because I have no doubt that many people outside regard our present way of discussing money matters as a matter for regret.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: I want to make a couple of points about the speeches which have just been made from the other side of the House, and firstly, that made by the


hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). I agree with virtually the whole of his speech; I go a very long way with him. I, too, would accept the proposition that one should timetable every Bill which comes before the House, but I do not think it is a proposition which is ever likely to gain very much ground, especially if we have timetables in the sort of unreasonable terms in which this timetable is proposed.
The hon. Member suggested that there should be a compromise between the views of the Government and the views of the Opposition. This can be claimed to be no sort of compromise at all. It is simply dictation by the Government of the amount of time in which they are going to steamroller through their Measure.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) was rather scathing about middle of the night debates. When I have been here a little longer, perhaps I, too, will lose patience with them. In my short experience of the House, frequently I have found debates late at night, when the hon. Members in the Chamber are made up of those who have a real interest in the legislation under review, to he extremely stimulating and to the point. The moles who come up from the bowels of the building in order to sustain the Government of the day and who never listen to the debates find night sittings a little tedious, but the select and not unhappy band who sit through and seek to contribute provide very stimulating debate.
When I had finished the contribution which I was lucky enough to make on this tax on the night of 29th June, I said that it was a tax which lacked both economic logic and common humanity, and that the Amendments which the Opposition were seeking to introduce, while they would not make it a good tax, could give it a little of those two attributes. That is the object of the exercise in which we are engaged on the Selective Employment Payments Bill.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) made two points about today's debate when he said that it should contribute both to the prestige of the House and to the improvement of the legislation under review.
However, I think that they are one and the same point, because nothing would diminish the prestige of the House more quickly than that it should pass half-baked legislation. Prolonged scrutiny of legislation, particularly of financial legislation, improves its quality when it is finally passed.
As a fairly new hon. Member, I have seen right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench listening to sustained argument building up from the back benches, after which they have promised to have another look at the Clause under review and come back with Amendments. It may be that it is possible to argue that all the points can be put succinctly and quickly in a couple of speeches from each Front Bench. But that is not the sort of process which I have seen have any impact on the Government Front Bench. It is the sustained building up of argument, sometimes from both sides of the House, which makes a Minister have second thoughts and agree to go away and think again.
If this Motion is agreed to, it will inhibit that sort of build-up of feeling on both sides, and it is for that reason that I propose to vote against it. I do not think that anyone asks that we should have unlimited time to talk ad nauseam. We ask that we should have enough time to subject the Bill to searching examination.
When the Leader of the House made his business statement last Thursday, he said:
 I think that the House will probably agree that we have done what I promised to do, provided adequate time."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 14th July, 1966; Vol. 731, c. 1723]
I do not believe that there is anyone on this side—and the sorts of estimates that we had from the other side just now suggest that there are some hon. Members on that side who share the view —who thinks that the right hon. Gentleman has lived up to that promise and provided adequate time for discussion.
I can understand that members of the Government have no stomach for this fight. They know that they have a bad tax which arouses passionate controversy in the country, and they have decided to get their heads down on a very bad wicket and bash on through in as short a time as they can. If they have no


stomach for this fight, my advice to them is to depart from the field of battle and let somebody else take over.
From experience in my constituency, I know that it is impossible to overstate the depth of feeling which this tax has aroused across a wide section of the electorate. On the night of 29th June, and indeed the morning of 30th June, to which I have already referred, there was no speech on either side of the House which gave unqualified support for the tax, and there were only one or two which gave it any support at all.
We were told that the details of this tax could be discussed when the Bill was presented to the House. It was presented as a concession that we would be able to consider the tax on the Floor of the House, and now we are presented with this sort of Motion which means that the Bill will be given less consideration than if it were considered upstairs in Committee.
Like other hon. Members, I have been inundated with cases, some good and some bad, of the impact of this tax on different interests, and it needs arguing out on the Floor of the House. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to have great faith in the wisdom of the Chancellor to look at all these arguments in abstract in the Press, and in the correspondence that he receives. I do not share this faith. I want to see this thing hammered out on the Floor of the House, because I believe that in this way we can knock some sense into the tax, and into the Government, and perhaps get some sort of improvement in both.
I re-emphasise the point which has been made by many of my hon. Friends about the importance of preserving the rights of back benchers. There are many groups of people in my constituency upon whom this tax will have a considerable interest. The hotel industry will be faced with a £ 20 million impost, and this is an industry which contributes greatly to such economic strength as this nation at present possesses. But whether the tax is imposed on hotels, or on part-time workers, or on married women going out to work, or whether it is a question of considering the relative fairness of competition between nationalised industries and private enterprise, all these things should

be argued out on the Floor of the House, and argued out in particular by back benchers, otherwise back-bench Members are reduced to the level of Lobby fodder, and we might as well have a House half or one-third the size of the present one.
I have a particular grievance in that I have put down an Amendment to Clause 4, which is highly contentious and controversial. That Clause has been lumped together with Clause 3, and we are to be allowed only two and a half hours to discuss them. This is scandalous. if the Clause is passed unamended, a real injustice will be done to a vital section of the community. This tax must be improved and amended.
In a review of the economy, the Christian Science Monitor of 16th July said:
 What is one to conclude? Perhaps that if Britain now is only one step from bankruptcy in its international payments, it is at the same time but one resolute heave from affluence.
This tax in its unamended form is a positive obstacle to us giving that heave which can secure us affluence and take us back from the brink of bankruptcy.
We cannot now hope for the withdrawal of the tax, but I wonder whether it is too late to hope that we can, in this House, give it much more sustained and considered consideration, and that perhaps it may leave this House in a better form than that in which it comes to us.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: The speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) was an admirable and complete answer—it was the complement, counterpart and contradiction, to put it another way—to the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). I nearly called the hon. Gentleman "my hon. Friend", and he will understand why. I also dislike contradicting him here, because I have to catch his eye in another place; and he understands what I mean by that, too.
The thesis of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West is that the S.E.P. Bill has already been adequately discussed in principle because of the debates we have


had on the Finance Bill. Such an argument completely distorts the realities underlying the provisions of the S.E.P. Bill. For example, I draw the attention of the House, particularly hon. Members who have not followed what might be called the race card in the Amendment table, to the extraordinary number of Amendments which have been tabled by the Government. Perhaps the hon. Member for Woolwich, West has not noticed that the Government have been tabling not only Amendments but Amendments to Amendments since the relevant part of the Finance Bill was discussed. Such is the Government's total lack of real understanding on their own Measure.

Mr. Hamling: The significance of the Government putting down Amendments is indeed proof of my thesis—that there was tremendous discussion of the detail of the S.E.P. Bill when we debated the Finance Bill.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman has not spotted the real truth which underlies my point, which is that Amendments have been tabled to Amendments since the debate on the Finance Bill. I will give a few examples. The Government tabled Amendment No. 224 on 7th July. I notice the hon. Member for Woolwich, West searching through the Order Paper. He is wasting his time, because he will not find that Amendment on the Paper any longer. It has been dropped and another has been put in its place. It disappeared, because so misconceived was it that the Government had to table Amendment No. 327 to replace it a week later. Thus, a week after attempting to amend the Bill, the Government had to amend their Amendment.
This is of great significance, because the Amendment which the Government further amended relates to an aspect of the Bill which was not dealt with until the amended Amendment was brought forward—to a crucial and highly relevant economic aspect of the Bill in that it brings in the much vexed question of research and training. Yet even the amended Amendment fails to deal with the basic activity in the economic sphere, to which the Bill makes no reference at all—namely, management training. This is the root of all our prospects of increased productivity. Despite that, it has

been left out. Perhaps the amended Amendment will be further amended.
Much of the time that will be available for discussing the S.E.P. Bill will be occupied in discussing Government Amendments. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that my hon. Friends and I will have time to discuss our Amendments, but what about Government Amendments? The fact that the Government have found it necessary to amend their own Amendments proves not only that their proposed Amendments have been unsatisfactory, but that we will not have sufficient time to discuss these matters.
To give another example, Amendment No. 225 was tabled on 7th July by the Government. That has been sunk without trace and its place has been taken by Amendment No. 329—another amended Amendent of the utmost significance. What has happened to the Amendment which has been replaced by Amendment No. 332, which now appears on the Notice Paper? The hon. Member for Woolwich, West will note that that Amendment has been increased by one-third and that a crucial new subsection has been inserted introducing far-reaching provisions affecting associated companies.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West cannot say that these matters have been discussed on the Finance Bill because, the Government having amended their own Amendments, flaws have appeared that were not known even to the Government when we discussed the Finance Bill. The hon. Gentleman's argument that the debate on the Finance Bill provided adequate opportunity to discuss the S.E.P. Bill is, therefore, entirely specious. The truth is that the Government do not know their own Bill, and that is why both sides of the House need more time to consider it.
The fact that there has been a lack of research done by the Government into this whole matter is proved by an appalling lacuna in the Bill—the inapplicability and irrelevance of the Standard Industrial Classification. It will hardly be believed by hon. Members when I say that the Standard Industrial Classification has no category dealing with exploration for oil and natural gas. Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that we now have to discuss


a Bill in which the most far-reaching and fundamental industrial development since the Industrial Revolution, and the application of coal to iron ore—I refer to the exploration for natural gas and oil—is not an industrial activity in the Standard Industrial Classification? Is all this exploration a premium activity, a refund activity, or nothing at all? It is not even in the Classification. Yet the hon. Member for Woolwich, West is supporting a Motion to truncate the amount of time for debating this basic instrument.
The situation is ludicrous. What are we to do without proper debate on the application of this Bill to the activities of the oil companies here and in every quarter of the globe? The Government have not even thought of it, but I have no doubt that they will produce yet another Amendment.

Mr. Handing: The hon. Member has obviously been reading my Second Reading speech on the Finance Bill, in which I made precisely the point he has just made.

Mr. Alison: "Then the point will have to be repeated now because, obviously, the Government do not read their own back bencher's speeches any more than they do those of the Opposition.
There are other points relating to the kind of qualification which hang very much on the fact that the Government have not thought through the implications of what is in the Bill—not even in their amended Amendments, not even in the total lack of examination of the Standard Industrial Classification to see whether it applies to some industries.
Other parts of the Bill require examination, and perhaps I may quote a parallel example of where adequate examination has not been given. The Industrial Development Bill is the natural complement to the Selective Employment Payments Bill, and has all sorts of interrelated provisions attached to it. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Industrial Development Bill hangs a great carrot in front of the industrialists to move to the development areas. Will the Government tell us why that feature in the Bill is in many ways negatived by some of the provisions of the Selective Employment Payments Bill?
In the Industrial Development Bill, not only did we have the most extensive discussion on the whole subject of exploration for natural gas and oil, and whether or not that was a qualified manufacturing process for grant but, as a result of discussions through the usual channels as to a time limit for discussing the Bill to let it get to the Statute Book in reasonable time, we had over 30 hours for the Committee and Report stages, and Third Reading.
We were allowed over 30 hours on a Bill that proposed to redistribute £ 250 million of the taxpayers' money, yet it is now proposed that we should have only seven or 12 hours on the crucial Clause 2 of this Bill, a Bill which deals with, perhaps, £300 million or more of the taxpayers' money. Why should our debates be truncated? On this crucial Bill, why should we be allocated only a tiny, miniscule, amount of time? It is quite illogical. The truth about the Industrial Development Bill is that the C.B.I. investigations of the intentions of industrialists under that Bill showed that over 90 per cent. of them had no preference between the old provisions and those in the new Bill.
On the other hand, the Selective Employment Payments Bill is one out of which those affected cannot opt. They cannot make up their minds to act independently of Government legislation. Those at the receiving end, either as consumers, who will pay higher prices, or as employees, who may lose their jobs, or as employers, who will find it very much harder to keep their businesses going, cannot get out of the provisions of the Bill yet here only a tiny amount of time is allocated by the Government. The Government could easily give more time and they know it. Only the other day they published—

Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will the hon. Member assist us by letting us know whether he has formed any estimate, and if so by telling us what it is, of how much time would be required if we did not have a timetable Motion and the 400 Amendments had to be decided before the Government could make progress with this Bill?

Mr. Alison: That is quite easily done. The hon. Member asked a specific question and I will give a specific answer. We


have tabled Amendments in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) and others of my hon. Friends which ask precisely for six extra days. The Government want five days overall and we want 11—six more, or the inside of a working week. Yet it is claimed that the Government cannot afford this time. What are they to do in August? They have published lists of Questions for 18th August so presumably we shall sit until 18th August. Yet they are refusing a request for simply an extra week.
It cannot be said that the Government are so anxious to lay their hands on the £s. d., because if they gave us these extra days they would still get the money The tax will not begin to bite until September. In any case it will raise only £ 250 million odd in the interval before repayments start and the Government could easily get that on the regulator. The fact is that the Government panicked. They do not know the inside of their own Bill so they seek to prevent holes being shot in it. They have panicked and will give a day for steel nationalisation but not a day longer for this critical Bill affecting millions of consumers and taxpayers. They do not know their own Bill, they are frightened of it and want to rush it through.
I appeal to hon. Members opposite who have been criticising the procedures of this House on the basis that the great British public pay no attention to this House or draw the conclusion that we are a lot of idiots spending a lot of time on irrelevancies. But we should not worry too much about the public's view of Parliament. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) wrote about Beatrix Potter's diaries, recently, and pointed out that her view of Parliament in 1866 was far from flattering. But the publicity effect is not the point. The point is that we discuss and formulate and put into cold print on the Statute Book laws which will affect the people. Although they may not pay much attention, the cold steel enters the legislation which affects them years afterwards. There is no excuse for not giving extra time. Not only this House but the whole country is with us in asking that we should have the extra six days which we want.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison), who has deployed with great force and eloquence unanswerable arguments against this Motion. Earlier in this debate we were treated to a number of observations from hon. Members opposite which made me feel that I understood for the first time what Sydney Smith meant when he wrote of someone being
preached to death by wild curates".
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) and the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) are not in their places. If I may include a minor canon in the ecclesiastical gallery, I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is also absent. This, I suppose, was a diverting contribution to the debate, but it reinforced my long-held view that politics is too serious a business to be left to university lecturers.
Since we are debating a proposition brought forward by the Leader of the House that we should change the rules in the middle of the game, which is something to be deplored in any field of activity, but particularly in this one, it rests with the Government to put before the House much stronger arguments in favour of the Motion than anyone has so far deployed from the Government benches.
We have heard much generalisation on the subject of the inadequacies of our procedure. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) treated us to his usual arguments in this regard. But we have not got down to the real business of the Motion. We have heard no contributions on that matter from the Government benches, which I am glad to see are now marginally fuller than before.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Hon. Members have come in to listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Onslow: I am glad to hear it.
Four arguments are advanced against the opponents of the Motion. Rather than being advanced in support of the Motion, they are advanced against its opponents. The first is that the Bill is urgent. This is a curious view. Events during the last


few weeks have made the Bill increasingly irrelevant. The purported objective of securing some free disposition of employment is perhaps all to likely to be achieved by other developments which have taken place since this interesting gimmick first flashed across the Chancellor's firmament.
Secondly, we are told that other urgent legislation is coming on—such as the Iron and Steel Bill. The events of recent weeks and days have made that piece of legislation even more irrelevant, unnecessary and undesirable than it has been throughout its long, unnecessary and undesirable history.
Thirdly, we are told—perhaps this is the argument advanced with the greatest fervour—that it is necessary that hon. Members on both sides of the House should be able to get away from here and take their families to the seaside. Speaking for myself, I do not ask a Government—I do not expect a Government—to show any particular solicitude for myself and my family. This is up to me. I will take all the care I can of them. I do not want the Government of the day to pat me on the head paternally and say, "My boy, you ought to be off with the bucket and spade brigade". What business is it of the Treasury Bench whether I go and build sandcastles or not? I regard my business as being here. The Treasury Bench would no doubt be much better employed making mud pies than they are in their present occupation.
Fourthly, we are told—this is another curious argument—that our opposition to the Motion is in some way insincere because we ought to be sitting in the mornings. I have no doubt that we shall find ourselves sitting into tomorrow morning. I would not mind if we sat into some other mornings, starting at 3.30 and going through. My guess is that we should get more time for debate if we used the mornings in that way than if we marched up here only at 10.30, by which time the sun has been up a long while.
This argument again ignores the inconvenience which would be caused to Scottish Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) mentioned this—and to Members serving on Standing Committees. I do not believe that we are all that long

way through the Land Commission Bill. There is work to be done on that Bill on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. That Bill could well be dropped. It it were, we might well take a slightly different view of sitting in the mornings. But the Bill is there and we have to oppose it in Committee. That is our duty.
The Government's arguments are only sham arguments. I believe the truth of the matter is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash has said, that the Government are scared stiff of being forced to defend the Bill in detail against critical, sustained and incisive questioning and attack. It is a Measure of which the Government have become increasingly ashamed and which they have come increasingly to regret. I believe, also, that this is true of back bench Members opposite.
I do not suppose that hon. Members on this side of the House are unique in having received on this Measure more correspondence from their constituents than on any other Measure, certainly in my short experience in Parliament and probably in the experience of hon. Members who have been here much longer.

Mr. Hamling: No.

Mr. Onslow: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) must have a singular lack of constituents. [An HON. MEMBER: "He had a big majority."] If he had a big majority, I dare say that he will not keep it for long.

Mr. van Straubenzee: They probably wrote to the Bishop of Woolwich.

Mr. Onslow: The point is that we have a Measure on which our constituents, whose views, I imagine, represent all political parties, write to us and point out the consequences of the Government's proposals and asks us to oppose them. We have consituents who have been caused real concern and distress, and in some cases something near despair by some of the proposals embodied in this Bill.
Our duty as Members is to speak for them, to put forward their points of view and to defend their interests. If we are not allowed to do this because it suits the convenience of the Government, because the Treasury Bench want to get off to the Costa Brava or wherever it is, this is a negation of democracy, and no


attempt to juggle with imaginary difficulties of the timetable can convince me that this Motion has justice on its side. It has not; the Treasury Bench knows it has not, and the country knows it has not. On any and every possible occasion we shall proclaim that it has not, and we shall fight against it as hard as we can.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: I have sat through the whole of this debate without moving from my seat because when I came into the Chamber this afternoon I was extremely puzzled as to how such a debate could last for so long. I must confess that I am far more puzzled now than I was when I came in. I have never experienced a guillotine debate before and I must say that I have no experience of university lecturing, so that I do not presume to have any great knowledge of the procedures of the House. But I am puzzled now not as to how such a debate can be kept going, but as to why the Committee stage of the Selective Employment Payments Bill was chosen for a guillotine Motion debate.
The Government have at their disposal a large number of other Measures which I would have thought they could far more easily and willingly have guillotined. The fact that they have chosen the one Bill which has not been supported in any way by anybody at any time would lead a more cynical person than myself to suppose that the reason was to stifle debate. This perhaps cannot be so, and so I am still puzzled about the real reason behind their thinking.
I am the more puzzled by the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who seemed to suggest that there was something more discreditable in the fact that hon. Members on this side of the House, and for all I know on the other side as well, seek to contribute something to the national interest in the mornings as well as attending the House in the afternoons, than there would be in going away for one's holidays a week earlier than would otherwise be the case. This, also, is very puzzling to me. I can only tell the House that I am proud that I earn my living in the morning as well as in the afternoon and evening.
As I see it, the difficulty in accepting this Motion is that, because of the broad scope of the Bill and the enormously wide effect it will have on the nation as a whole, it has not been possible, and it certainly will not be possible, for many matters of great importance to the national interest to be discussed in the truncated period available for us. I shall take two examples from my own experience, and I have no doubt that, within the experience of other hon. Members, there are hundreds of other relevant examples.
In my constituency there is a large company engaged in manufacturing and distribution. Last year, it amalgamated its distribution interests with distribution interests of another company, and it reckoned by so doing to save itself about £100,000 a year. This would be the direct result of making its distributive work more efficient. The effect of the Finance Bill and this Bill will be that it will have to pay Selective Employment Tax to the tune of £130,000 a year. This company intends, therefore, to abandon its more efficient arrangements and thus save £30,000 a year.
To this firm, it is a matter of principle, and it is a matter of principal generally which ought to be discussed in full in the House, and our discussion ought not to be truncated. There are many occasions and many ways in which the tax will work against the national interest and not just against the interests of individuals, which hon. Members opposite seem to regard as of so little importance.
My second example is the milk industry, about which hon. Members opposite have put down an Amendment. The milk industry is one of the largest in this country, with a turnover of about £ 500 million a year. Milk is a very emotive product, too, as anyone who has ever sought to resist the embattled and em-bottled mothers of this country will know. I believe the Bill to be the first attempt that anyone has made, at least for many years, to impose a tax on food. It is certainly the first occasion on which a tax has been imposed on essential food. This is a matter of the gravest importance. Taxes on food have in the past led to revolutions, and in the present they can lead to the fall of Governments. But under the Guillotine we are to have no right, as I see it, to discuss the rights and


wrongs of the principle of taxing food directly for the first time in our history.
Those two examples, if nothing else, should convince the House that this is a pernicious Motion which should be opposed

9.39 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I hope that it will be convenient now to reply to some of the speeches made during this debate, a debate which has been by no means too long because it deals with what is of fundamental importance to every right hon. and hon. Member, the right to speak, the right of free speech, which we all hold dear, particularly the right of back benchers and especially Opposition back butchers, and even more particularly the right of idiosyncratic Opposition back benchers, to say their piece. Everyone knows the view of the average Member, the orthodox Member. We want to know the view of the unorthodox Member, so I, for one, certainly take the view that a guillotine Motion should not be introduced unless it is necessary and that the onus of proof of its need rests upon the Government introducing it. On that, we are on common ground.
We have had a long debate and some of my hon. Friends, coming into this kind of debate for the first time have felt that it would not be very fruitful unless we drew—I say so, I hope, without offence —more helpful conclusions than the mere "You're another" kind of comment, more fruitful conclusions than merely saying, "When we were sitting there we did the same thing, but, of course, we had full justification, whereas the present Government have no justification at all."
In that context, I pick up straight away what the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) said, that they thought that we ought to endeavour to make progress considering agreed timetable Motions. By "agreed timetable Motions" I mean timetable Motions which nave been discussed through the usual channels, I imagine, but certainly between the three parties and put before the House for the approval of hon. Members, because, of course, the House must decide finally. I should have thought that there was a great deal to

be said for that kind of consideration, because surely by now—the debate has made this absolutely clear—both sides accept that a guillotine Motion is on occasion an essential part of our democratic procedure but that it is one that has to be used with care and only when one is driven to that extremity.

Sir D. Glover: I am very interested in what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, because I agree with most of it, but the problem that I have not been able to solve is that shown up by the Finance Bill last year. We agreed to a timetable Motion, but then the Government produced 400 Amendments. How are we to find the time for that sort of thing? This is a problem which the House should take into account in considering an agreed timetable Motion.

Mr. Diamond: I was going on to say that I hoped that this idea would be further discussed, because it did not seem to me such an extraordinary extension of the things that we already do. I have never been a part of the usual channels, but we all have an idea of what goes on. I would understand that, for example, the business of the House is, while not necessarily agreed, discussed between the usual channels before it is announced.
I would go further—I hope that I do not embarrass any right hon. Gentlemen opposite—and say that when one is discussing, for example, a long Finance Bill —it happens from time to time—there are times when there is a quite unofficially accepted, rather than agreed, timetable on parts of it which the House sees fit to adhere to, which is part of the co-operation which Oppositions of all parties extend to the Government of the day when dealing with Finance Bills. Therefore, I say that this is not an unusual extension. I would hope that one could pursue that matter. I will come to it again in a few moments.
First of all, I would deal more specifically with the responsibility or onus for justifying this timetable Motion. It is common ground that this is an accepted principle between the two sides of the House. Both parties have made use of the procedure. The Labour Government over a period of seven or eight years have used it three times, and the Conservative Government over a period of a little over 13 years, have used it


15 times. In case anybody is tempted by these figures to think that we are inclined to use it more frequently than the Conservatives, the arithmetic is that the Conservatives have used it since the war three times as frequently as we have when in power.
If the principle is common between us, my responsibility and that of my right hon. Friends is to demonstrate the absolute necessity to get the Bill through on time. There are two arguments about this which have not been fully put forward. The first is a strong argument and the second is conclusive.
First, the Ministry of Labour needs the Bill through in the time allotted so as to be in the position of ensuring that the machinery is ready to begin payment in early January. The Ministry assures me that that is the case. We have gone into this very fully and the Ministry is satisfied that it cannot have the machinery ready unless we have the Bill through in time.
What is a very powerful argument and much more relevant is that the employers themselves who will be paying the tax from September must know at that time whether they are to pay, whether they are to pay and get a refund, or whether they are to pay and get a premium. This is of direct relevance to their accounting, and one must consider their modern accounting machinery.
They must know at the time they make payment whether it is to be payment for money spent or for indebtedness or future repayment. They cannot know this without knowing what the Bill provides. Unless the Bill is ready, they cannot have received in time from the Ministry the forms indicating the method by which they will be able to reclaim repayment, if there be repayment, either by way of refund or by way of premium, whichever is appropriate in their cases.
We are very much up against time and it is absolutely vital for the employers to know well before September what their position is so that they can make the necessary arrangements and so that they can be duly informed by the Minister where they stand and what forms they are to use. I cannot see how they can be in a position to carry out these responsibilities unless the Bill is through in the time allotted.
The second factor I have to demonstrate is whether the time allowed for discussion of the Bill is reasonable. I know that there is an Amendment on which we shall discuss this in more detail but it is appropriate that I should refer to it now in broad outline. Many hon. Members have drawn attention to the close relationship between the Selective Employment Tax and the Selective Employments Payments Bill. They are, of course, two halves of the same overall process and that is why the Opposition requested that they should be discussed contemporaneously. I remind the House of the number of occasions on which the Finance Bill and the S.E.P. Bill and the principles of the details involved have already been discussed.
First, there was the debate on the Budget. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made extensive reference to these matters both in his opening and closing speeches. I myself dealt with them at some length. Then there was the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, when they were again dealt with at considerable length. Indeed, most of the speeches from both sides centred on the S.E.T. The Second Reading of the S.E.P. Bill dealt with nothing but these matters.
In Committee on the Finance Bill we spent no less than 33 hours 10 minutes on Clause 42, dealing with the S.E.T. and related matters, some details of which are repeated in the Amendments put down to the S.E.P. Bill. The same matters are, however, involved. On the Report stage of the Finance Bill, we spent a further 2 hours and 20 minutes on the same details. Thus, we spent a total of 35½ hours on the details, apart from the Budget speeches and two Second Reading debates on the principles. That is what has already happened on the subject matte' of this Motion.
The timetable Motion provides virtually five days for the remaining stages —three days in Committee, one day for Report and Third Reading and on each of the four days an extra 1½ hours, a total of six hours, making virtually five days in all.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: The right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that not one speech from the Government back benches was in favour of


this Measure, which is highly controversial on both sides of the House.

Mr. Diamond: I am not disputing its controversiality. I am claiming it. It is only a very controversial Bill for which the Government are entitled to put down a timetable Motion. In practice, it is only a controversial Bill which gives rise to such a Motion. The hon. Gentleman is helping me with my case.

Mr. Hirst: It is rather unusual for a Government to put down a guillotine Motion when the Bill is highly controversial on both sides of the House.

Mr. Diamond: I have claimed that it is highly controversial. I have listened carefully to the speeches which have been made today and I have looked again at the Division lists to make sure whether the Government carried the Second Reading on a Division, and my review indicates that they did. The suggestion which we are making is that on the Committee stage there should be virtually four days for what in effect are 10 Clauses. This is a 12 Clause Bill, two of the Clauses being the Title, and so on, so that there are 10 effective Clauses for which we are allowing four days in Committee.
Let me remind the House of some precedents in that connection. The Army Reserve Bill, 1962, had two days for eight Clause, an average of four Clauses a day. These are timetable Motions put down by the Conservatives when in Government. On the Television Bill, 1954, for 20 Clauses there were five days, an average of four Clauses a day; on the Transport Bill, 1953, 35 Clauses, seven days, an average of five Clauses a day; the National Health Service Bill, eight Clauses, one day, an average of eight Clauses a day. If those are added together, there is an overall average of five and a quarter Clauses a day, exactly double the number of Clauses, or roughly half the time which we are proposing to allot.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Chief Secretary started that list by referring to the Army Reserve Bill, 1962, for which he said there were two days. Is my memory wrong, or was that two days after the Guillotine? Were there not also three days in Committee before the Guillotine was introduced?

Mr. Diamond: The figures which I have had given to me are eight Clauses with two days allotted for Committee stage. I would be more than happy to omit that in case I have not been given figures accurately enough, because that example was the least advantageous to my argument. If one omits that, one gets a rate of progress which is not twice as great as what we are proposing, but much more than that.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Having conceded the first item on his list, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am right in what I said and he is wrong, would he now recall that the last time a Bill was guillotined, before it went into Committee, was in 1952 and that therefore, with one exception, all of the illustrations that he has given to the House are wrong?

Mr. Diamond: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's interruption, because it has given me time for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to remind me of the circumstances, which were that one Clause was in discussion in Committee before the timetable Motion and had not been completed. Therefore, the number of days allotted for the Committee stage was correctly described by me as being in respect of eight Clauses.
If the right hon. Gentleman says that the only precedent is the National Health Service Bill, there we have eight Clauses in one day, as opposed to the present proposal, with a very similar-sized Bill, of 10 Clauses and virtually four days. The argument that I was trying to make was that we were being twice as generous when we were in Government, but the right hon. Gentleman prefers to have it put rather specially, that we are being four times as generous.
Whichever way it is, the precedents show quite clearly that although we have already discussed for 35½ hours the principle and details and the very matters which are remaining for discussion and we did not discuss the Army Reserve Bill for 351 hours before it was guillotined—we are still proposing a period of time for the discussion of the Committee stage which is roughly twice as generous as anything that has been offered previously.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman, with his habitual


courtesy, give way? [Interruption.] One reason is as good as another. Would he be good enough to deal with this point? Even assuming his statistics to be correct, surely the difference is that the matters to which he refers in these other Bills, although highly important, are concentrated into a relatively narrow sector. The matters which are being dealt with here extend right over the whole range of commercial and industrial activities. That difference is reflected in the number of Amendments. Does that not invalidate the comparison which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to make?

Mr. Diamond: I could not accept that point of view at all. Several of the Bills which have been guillotined affected citizens all over the country. I am thinking in terms of the health charges. This affected people in a way which we regarded as very vital indeed. So far as this Bill is concerned, although the details are of some importance, the Chancellor and the Government generally have made their views known on the matters which are to be debated. As several of my hon. and right hon. Friends have said, the Bill could conveniently be dealt with in four or five major debates by the Amendments being collected together and dealt with under one group, because the principle involved keeps on coming up time and time again.
I have to do more than demonstrate that we are being more generous than the Opposition, I have to demonstrate that this timetable Motion, which is essential is also unavoidable. I can demonstrate that it is unavoidable for two reasons. First, it is unavoidable in view of the number of Amendments on the Notice Paper, which have been referred to many times already and which are so numerous that if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite got their way, and had all the time that they were asking for, they would be in the happy position of being able to vote on each Amendment, provided that they did not say one word on any one of them. The simple process of going through the Division Lobbies would take up the whole of the time. They referred in their speeches to the need to speak and vote on all of these Amendments. One cannot say that there is any major principle between us. It is just a matter of some important detail as

to how much time is allotted for the reasonable discussion of the remainder of this Bill.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to the Selective Employment Payments Bill (Allocation of Time) may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's sitting, at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. John Silkin]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Diamond: It is a question not only of the number of Amendments, but of the Opposition's attitude to the Bill which the Government must take into account. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said that we should tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer to amend the Finance Bill and to remove the Selective Employment Tax from it completely. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The view expressed is not that we should take time to amend the Selective Employment Payments Bill, but that we should wring its neck. That is one expression of opinion.
The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) called this a revolutionary Bill. I hope that I do not misjudge his political attitudes, but when he refers to a Measure as revolutionary I do not think that he intends to pay it a compliment. He is wholly against the Bill and has no intention of amending it. I regret that I was not here to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), but I am told that he said, "I want to obstruct the Bill for as long as I can". [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In view of this, it is not unreasonable for the Government to take the view that there are hon. Members opposite who are concerned not so much to amend the Bill as to destroy and obstruct it. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) said, "We shall fight against this as hard as we can". That represents the general view of hon. Members opposite.
I hope that the House will accept that we are reasonable in reaching the conclusion that the Opposition want to obstruct the Bill, as they are perfectly entitled to do. I hope that I have demonstrated that we are being reasonable in the time that we propose to provide. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I hope that I have


demonstrated that it is in the interests of the citizen, and, in particular, of the employer, that the Bill should become law as soon as possible.
The right hon. Member for Enfield, West was good enough to say that there was no gulf of opinion dividing us; there is a difference of view about what is a reasonable period to allot to the Bill. I hope that he will feel, on further consideration, that this is not a matter of principle which divides us. We are agreed about the principle. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, we are agreed about the principle that a democratic Government must from time to time rely on a timetable Motion. We acknowledge the co-operation which Government and Opposition extend to one another in the interests of good government.
I hope that the Opposition will feel it worth continuing this discussion, because it will have been a very fruitful day's debate if we can move from these rather dreary debates, with one side saying to the other, "You are behaving very badly. We always behaved very well when we did this sort of thing ", and quoting each other's speeches to the time when we can perhaps agree, through the usual channels, the kind of timetable Motion which might be appropriate for a number of occasions. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will feel that it is not necessary to press their opposition to this Motion.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Peter Walker: All that the Chief Secretary managed to demonstrate was that the Government have absolutely no justification for this timetable Motion. His speech was typical of him, as I know from having debated several Finance Bills with him. Whenever he has a very bad case, he starts by saying how he understands the importance of the arguments and how reasonable he will be, and then he goes on to produce a series of very bad counter-arguments. I have heard him produce many bad arguments supporting poor cases, but I have never heard him produce a worse argument supporting a very poor case than tonight.
First, he argued that we were to take no notice of arguments propounded by the then Opposition on previous guillo-

tine Motions; they were all rather bogus arguments and not important and it was wrong to quote any arguments then used against guillotine Motions, presumably meaning that when the present Foreign Secretary, Secretary of State for Scotland, and Prime Minister, and almost every other Member of the Government, at that time criticised such Motions as this, they were producing lightweight and bogus arguments. One can understand there being some truth in that, but none of the guillotine Motions introduced when we were the Government was anywhere near as mean as this Motion.
We are debating tonight this particular guillotine Motion. Both sides agree that there are times when a guillotine Motion is needed. There is no dispute about that. The task for the Government was to justify that this was a reasonable Motion. The Leader of the House bears much more responsibility in this matter than does the Chief Secretary, for he has the task of protecting the interests of back-bench Members on both sides of the House. Yet he made a speech which contained not one word of justification of this Motion. He said that there had been many arguments about such Motions in the past and he implied that they had all been rather bogus and that nobody should take any notice of them today. But he is the first Leader of the House, certainly since 1945, to move a Motion of this kind without offering any argument or justification of the period of time laid down in the Motion. I am afraid that that will reflect very badly on his standing with back-bench Members.
The first of the Chief Secretary's arguments was that the Tories had introduced more guillotine Motions than had the Socialists. What he must realise is that it is not the frequency of the guillotine Motions but the severity of this Motion which is the important test of whether it is justified. He made the remarkable contention that there were various reasons why the Bill must reach the Statute Book quickly. The first was that unless it went through the House in the next few days, the Ministry of Labour could not prepare its administration for January. If we have a Ministry of Labour in such a state that if the Bill is passed in the second or third week of August, instead of in the next couple of weeks, it cannot prepare to administer it before January,


it is time that we found a new Minister of Labour.
We understand that, due to the incompetence of the Treasury the Inland Revenue is unable to cope with this tax and that this is the reason for the separate Bill. But, having decided to sub-contract the Bill, one would have hoped that the Treasury would sub-contract it to a Ministry which was able in four months after the passage of the Bill to build up the necessary machinery to put into operation.
The Chief Secretary said that the next reason for the timetable was that the businessman must know what was happening and must be quickly put out of his uncertainty. The businessman, he said, would much prefer not to have his case argued; he would prefer quickly to be out of uncertainty and to know he had to pay the tax.
This comes very ill from a Government who have created as much uncertainty as this Government have for businessmen. We remember how they announced the Corporation Tax and left many months of uncertainty as to the way it was to apply. We remember how they introduced the Capital Gains Tax, and how they left many months of uncertainty before the details were made known. We know how in almost every sphere of economic decision this Government have been the very practitioners in creating maximum uncertainty. It is because they are so skilled in this that there have been so many crises of confidence in sterling during the period in which the present Government have been in office. So it ill becomes them to say that the businessman will not tolerate another couple of weeks of uncertainty—a couple of weeks spent in debating his case. I challenge the Chief Secretary or any Minister who speaks later to name one representation the Government have had from any business source at all that this Bill should not be debated fully in order to relieve uncertainty.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: rose—

Mr. Walker: Oh, yes, I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maxwell: It comes ill from the Opposition Front Bench spokesman on

this issue to say what he has just said. I can confirm to him that, in view of the credit squeeze going on now, in view of the difficulty of the business man in being able to find the kind of resources which this tax will require, in order to help him with the inflationary fight, it is absolutely essential for him to know promptly that this tax will be payable so that he can make the necessary arrangements to pay it.

Mr. Walker: All I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that so much has been the advance, presumably, of his own particular business in recent times that he is the only publisher who has not asked us to debate this particular issue. Publishers certainly want the case of the book trade argued. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman has no such desire.
Then we had the argument of the Chief Secretary on the time which has already been taken discussing the Bill. He said, "First of all, there was the Budget debate ". Let him recall that the Bill was not even published at the time of the Budget debate, and so there was no possibility then of debating the S.E.P. Bill. There was no Bill published, so it was quite impossible to discuss it.
He went on to say, "Then there was the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill". We know how very few back-bench Members were able to speak on that Second Reading—and there were many other items to consider.
Then he went on to say that the great case for this was that it was a controversial Bill and because it was controversial they must introduce the Guillotine. He said, "Controversial Bills are the very Bills on which to introduce the Guillotine ". This is the new dogma of the present Government: "If it is controversial, stop them talking. Do not let us hear arguments. And if it is controversial for our own back-bench Members who are against it, that is all the more reason for putting on the Guillotine "—and so stop the embarrassment of the Government during the passage of the Bill.
Mind you, the Chief Secretary is very good at this theme of the joy of controversy. During an address he gave to a conference in the City recently, organised, I believe, by the Investors' Chronicle, he proclaimed this principle to


his audience, "The Bill", he said, "causes such criticism and controversy, and no Bill has caused such criticism and controversy as this one. We in the Labour Government want to introduce legislation so bad and so controversial it provokes discussion". That was his theme at that conference. His theme in the House of Commons is, "We may want to provoke discussion but we are going to see you jolly well do not have it". That is what he endeavoured to say tonight.
Then he went on to that splendid series of arguments about the ratio of time to Clauses. He was immediately defeated in that very bad argument by the interjection of my right hon. Friend. We learned that in every case but one that he had quoted there had been considerable debate in the Committee stage before the Guillotine was moved, and, on that basis, every case but one fell to the ground, and his whole argument was destroyed.
What he failed to give us was the list of Amendments that were not discussed. There was some mention by the Chief Secretary of the number of Amendments that had been guillotined as a result of the Measure which we introduced, but I ask the Chief Secretary to name any Measure on which the Tory Government introduced a Guillotine which gave so little time per Amendment as that which the Government are trying to introduce tonight. He will not find one in the whole political history of this century.
Thus, their case finally floundered, with the Chief Secretary recognising the weaknesses of all these arguments. He then staggered to the last, pathetic argument, that the Government had to do it because there were so many Amendments; they had to introduce the meanest guillotine Motion within living memory. That is what the Chief Secretary has argued tonight.
The fact is that this Measure is enormous in terms of its economic effects and in terms of its financial consequences. It is a Bill which needs a great deal of examination. We know that it was ill thought out. The Government have admitted by the concessions that they have already made that they gave no thought to the Measure before it was published. We all remember how, the day that it was announced, on the major issues of

agriculture, the Chancellor told us that it was going to be repaid through the Price Review. Within a few days and possibly because of the threat of another resignation, the poor, dejected Minister of Agriculture already having inflicted the British farmer with one of the worst Price Reviews in history—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie) rose—

Mr. Walker: I shall be delighted to give way if the hon. Gentleman cares to come down and speak officially from the Dispatch Box—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Very well. I will give way.

Mr. Mackie: I was simply going to point out to the hon. Gentleman that the average of our two Reviews is half as good again as the nine previous ones.

Mr. Walker: All I can say is that the hon. Gentleman should go and tell that to the farmers. We know how worried the Minister of Agriculture was; otherwise, why did the Chancellor change his view, give in, and collapse on this issue? It is not a minor issue, after all. The Government have given no thought to the subject, as the hon. Gentleman knows full well. When the effects on agriculture were pointed out to the Chancellor, he gave in.
Then we had the Government's change of view on charities. When asked whether something could be done for them, the House received, from either the Chief Secretary or the Financial Secretary, the straight answer, "No." Within a few weeks, under pressure, the Government gave in to the extent that they made what they said was a concession to charities. Now they are simply going to take a six-month interest-free loan from charities, and that is the sort of concession that the Government have been making on the Bill.
When one goes through the subjects which could be debated, first of all, there is the ridiculous conception that this type of Bill can be based on a classification produced for a completely different purpose. It was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison. when he said that within that industrial classification there are certain new industries which do not even have a


classification at present, it is completely inappropriate for these purposes, and, therefore, a whole debate has to take place upon how wide that classification is.
This tax will have a considerable effect on education. The Secretary of State for Education and Science nods agreement, and recognises the importance of this. He very much wants the opportunity of coming to the Dispatch Box and putting his views—which I am sure are hostile to the Bill—on the effects that this tax will have on education. If he is embarrassed by his Ministerial position and does not want to put the case himself, doubtless he will prompt one of his hon. Friends to put it for him, but under this Motion it is unlikely that we will have a debate on education.
Then there is the subject in which hon. Gentlemen opposite used to take a great interest, but which they have completely deserted, the problem of the development areas. No longer do we get long lists of questions. No longer are Adjournment debates initiated by hon. Gentlemen opposite on the subject of the development areas. No longer do they point out the problems there. No longer do they want to debate the fact that this Bill will prevent the service industries from going to the development areas where they are so urgently needed. It must be very disappointing for those who used to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite fighting the case for the development areas to discover that, now there is a Labour Government, hon. Gentlemen opposite remain silent on this topic and do not want it to be fully debated.
We also have to consider the effect of this tax on the hotel and catering industry. This affects not only many seaside towns, but areas like the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, where it is the main industry. The fact is that it is unlikely that we shall have a debate on this subject.
This tax will also affect the building societies. I am sure that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is devious enough in his ways to have organised a strong back bench protest about the way the housing programme is being treated as a result of the Bill, and about the scandalous treatment of the construction industry. The Government are fail-

ing in their housing programme. They are failing in their promise to lower mortgage rates, and yet here they are introducing another imposition on the building society movement. Not only are they imposing this restriction, but they are trying to prevent hon. Members from debating it.
We have also to consider the effect of the tax on some of our major invisible exports. The Government have never shown any interest in trying to improve the foreign earnings of our major industries responsible for invisible export, yet these are the industries—banking, insurance, the services provided by the City, and so on—which will be hard hit by the Bill. The whole object of the Bill is to discriminate against these industries, and, again, the Government do not wish us to discuss it.
We have here the first imposition by a Government of a direct tax on food, a direct tax on all the supplies sold by the retailers. The tax will not have an adverse effect on transport, but this, too, we shall not be allowed to discuss. It will also create social problems. We wanted to spend a lot of time debating the effects of the Bill on the disabled worker. We wanted to discuss its effects on religion, on sport, and on various other sectors of our society which will be directly taxed for the first time as a result of the Bill, and yet the Government are attempting to see that we do not have the opportunity to do so.
We have had a remarkable debate. We have had a series of speeches from the other side of the House, or perhaps I should say a series of speeches and lectures. The speeches, such as that by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), have been an endeavour to defend the Prime Minister. We know that hon. Gentleman has great affection for the Prime Minister. It was good to see him leaping up to defend the right hon. Gentleman. He made a strong case for the Bill.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said that he was against guillotine Motions, that he did not like them, that they ruined debates, and that he had argued against them on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in arguing against the Guillotine, and many of his hon. Friends have spoken against


the principle of the Guillotine before. Having told us how they ruined debates and how they were not very good for the House of Commons, he added, in effect, "But I will be voting for this one tonight, because if we do not have it it will stop Government legislation and I do not want to stop the Iron and Steel Bill from going through".
That is why the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale will be voting for the Guillotine tonight. He is saying, therefore, "I do not mind your having bad debates. I do not mind what effect this has on charities, the disabled, and our major invisible earnings. You can skip all of those, but let us get to the real thing, which is steel nationalisation."
I admire the honest presentation of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. However, I assure him that he can have his Iron and Steel Bill introduced and still avoid this Guillotine, because all that my hon. Friends and I are asking for is one further week of Parliamentary time. This would not affect his beloved Bill. We have said that we would be willing to sit into August and to work for a further week into our holidays so that the S.E.P. Bill is fully debated.
The Government will be strongly condemned for having introduced a Measure when really the priority is to get the Second Reading of the Iron and Steel Bill, which they know they cannot complete before the summer. They know that all the main stages of the Iron and Steel Bill will have to be taken next Session yet, to pacify the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, they are prepared to neglect this vital S.E.P. Bill, realising all its adverse effects. They are willing to do that just to squeeze in the Iron and Steel Bill and to pacify hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Then we had the arguments adduced by the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger)—a distinguished senior Member of the House, to whom we listen with interest—but I could not but feel today that he came here as a loyal supporter of the Government feeling that it was right that one of the senior hon. Members opposite should speak up in favour of this bad Motion.
Seeing that it is such a bad Motion, the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw tried hard. One of his arguments was that

the Government had obtained the confidence of the people at the recent election and were, therefore, perfectly in order in introducing a Motion of this sort. I do not believe that he would like to sustain that argument for long, because one important factor which a Government returned with a large majority should consider is how important it is for them to look after the interests of minorities in Parliament, particularly when they have a large majority. If the Government do not do that they will lose the confidence of the people, in the way that the present Government are losing confidence.
The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw went on to argue that the proposals which the Government will bring forward next Wednesday will be more important than those we are discussing. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government's proposals that day would be much more serious in purpose than these. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are discussing the main proposals of the Government in their Budget of but a few weeks ago? Is he aware that by the Prime Minister—and it is the Prime Minister and not the Chancellor of the Exchequer—announcing more serious proposals on Wednesday, this means that the Chancellor should resign? Does this not show the degree of the Chancellor's incompetence? Thus, we have had this appalling debate, with no argument from the benches opposite to support the Motion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), when questioning the Leader of the House on Thursday, said that he hoped that the Prime Minister would be here to debate such a squalid Measure. The right hon. Gentleman is not here, but in Moscow—but he may be back tomorrow morning. But this is a squalid Measure, of which any Prime Minister should be ashamed, and it is a pity he is not here—

Mr. John Peyton: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to intervene, because I should not like to be misquoted. What I said on that occasion was that I hoped that the Leader of the House would arrange for the Prime Minister to move this Motion, because I could not think of anyone from whom so shabby a proposal could come better.

Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clarifying the situation—and I am sure that he has the agreement of us all. It would have been a better thing for the Prime Minister to have tried to debate this Motion today than, perhaps, his trip to Moscow has been. But I leave condemnation of this Measure to the very way in which the Government themselves know that the Selective Employment Payments Bill is a throughly badly prepared Bill.
I quote from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself said recently about the Selective Employment Tax—and the interview was presumably checked by the right hon. Gentleman—in the Journal of the Certified Accountants. When it was put to him by the

questioner that it would have been far better to have introduced a flat payroll tax on the lines we have suggested in the past, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, after saying how difficult the machinery for that might be, replied:
 I have said from the beginning that I fully expect that this major new tax will be improved and refined as time goes on.
It is the whole purpose of the Government tonight to see that we do not have any time to improve and refine this tax. It is the whole purpose of the Government to see that the folly of this tax, with all its adverse effects, is not known to the people. I say to the Government that they may well be able to stop us discussing it by the arrogant use of a majority of nearly 100, but they will not stop us exposing their folly to the people.

10.33 p.m.

Sir 'John Hobson: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in line 5 to leave out "three" and to insert "eight".
I understand that, with this Amendment, we are discussing Amendment No. 6, to leave out lines 8 to 18 and to insert:

p.m.


First allotted day
Clause 1
—


Second allotted day
Caluse 1
11.30


Third allotted day
Clause 2
—


Fourth allotted day
Clause 2
—


Fifth allotted day
Clause 2
11.30


Sixth allotted day
Clause 3
5.00



Clause 4
7.30



Clause 5
9.30



Clause 6
11.30


Seventh allotted day
Clause 7
8.00



Clause 8
10.00



Clause 9
11.30


Eighth allotted day
Clauses 10, 11 and




12
7.00



New Clauses
10.30



Schedules and new Schedules
11.30

The purpose of the first of these two Amendments is to substitute eight days for the Committee stage for the three days proposed in the Motion, while the second Amendment sets out the way in which we suggest that those eight days should be allotted between different Clauses. This would result in the Amendments to the Bill being discussed —which is the purpose of a Committee stage—for 64 hours instead of for 24 hours. That is the difference between our timetable and that of the Government.

The last time on which a guillotine Motion was moved before the Committee stage of a Bill had even begun was in connection with the National Health Service Bill, 1952. On that occasion, precisely the same procedure was followed as on this occasion, namely, during the main part of the day we had the equivalent of a Second Reading debate on the general principle of whether or not there should be a Guillotine, and then the House went on to consider Amendments that had been put down to the main Motion.

Since the last election, many hon. Members opposite, particularly those who have newly arrived, have been carrying

loudly for more time in which to discuss important Measures. They complain that the House does not devote its attention sufficiently to important Measures. I have not heard a single speech from either side of the House today suggesting that this was not an important Measure. Everyone knows it is exceedingly important. What we complain about is that the Government are using their majority to dictate to the House a timetable which is much too severe compared with the importance of the Measure before us.

This is a serious curtailment of Parliament's right of free speech and Parliament's right to examine properly a Bill which affects every constituency and very large numbers of our constituents. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) said, it is not a question of the frequency with which Guillotines are introduced, but of their severity. Anyone who contemplates three days only for the Committee on the Bill to discuss more than 300 Amendments must see the absurdity of the proposals which the Government make.

I agree with one thing which the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) said. This is a question affecting relations between the Executive and the Legislature. This is a question which fundamentally affects the way in which the Government are going to control Parliament and allow it to discuss Measures. Here we have a Measure which is a diktat, a ukase, or a firman, according to whether speaks German, Russian, or Turkish, by the Government on the House of Commons.

Someone, during the speeches made today, suggested that this is a matter which should have been settled by discussion through the usual channels. I can quite see that if there had been an opportunity for that it would have been a sensible and useful suggestion instead of relying on the experts—whose identity we have not been told—to have agreed on a timetable, but everyone knows that the Government slapped down this guillotine Motion and that the Opposition did not see it and had no opportunity to make suggestions about it.

Now the Government have got it on the Order Paper and are to push it through by the force of their majority.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said that the only way in which the House of Commons can assert itself against the dictation of the Executive is by supporters of the Government on the back benches voting against the Government on matters which affect the interests of the House as a whole. Whether we sit on the Government benches or on this side of the House, we know that that is the way in which the Executive can be controlled by the Legislature.

Whatever talk we may have, and there is plenty of talk at present, about improvements in procedure, the Government control the House and they can get through the House of Commons exactly what they want. They can allow the House to discuss exactly what they want and prevent the House discussing exactly what they want. They can use, as they do today, their majority to override the Opposition and get their legislation as quickly as they like. When the two sides of the House agree they can pass anything as quickly as they like. Emergency legislation for the whole set-up of the conduct of the war was passed in one day on 3rd September, 1939, by both Houses of Parliament because both sides wanted it.

Only when there is a dispute, when the two sides of the House are clenched in argument, does it become important to see that the Government do not override the wishes of the House as a whole. I therefore make a comparison between the timetable proposed by the Government in their Motion and our proposal to increase the time for the discussion from the 24 to 64 hours.

The Chief Secretary seemed to argue that all one had to do was to take a number of Clauses and divide them. The fact is that a Bill may include one Clause that is important, and one may only discover how contentious the Bill is and where the contention is by looking at the number of Amendments, and not at the number of Clauses in the Bill. It is that which shows the extent to which a Bill creates difficulty, argument and contention not only in this House, but to our constituents and throughout the country.

Let me refer to Clause 1. This is the Clause which attracts industrial pre-

miums, where a large number of people will get additional money handed back to them, where they will get a bonus. It is, therefore, important for the House to see how public money is being distributed to those who have not earned it. The Government propose the ludicrous time of four hours for the discussion of this Clause and of 65 Amendments. While it is true that many of them may not be selected and that some of them may be grouped, if one assumes that only half of them will be discussed and that we discuss about 30 of them the net result will be that we shall have about seven minutes in which to discuss each of half the number of Amendments to Clause 1.

We would propose a total of 16 hours and that would give about half an hour for 50 per cent. of the Amendments, assuming that only about half of them are taken. It is a rough calculation, but I do not think it is unfair to assume that we shall want to discuss about half the Amendments.

Let us take the Amendment Paper as it stands and look at the first 15 Amendments to Clause 1; that is, only one quarter of the Amendments put down to that Clause. What do we find in those first 15 Amendments? They raise the problems of the development areas. The very first Amendment deals with that subject. They raise the question whether a premium should be paid at all. The Opposition, as the Government know very well, want to discuss the whole question of the payment of the premium to the industries when the areas that have services and not industries do not get a premium at all. Is it suggested that that can be discussed in seven minutes? This raises a major point of principle.

Next, there is the question whether there should be an equal refund for men and women. This is a Liberal Amendment—and I see no Liberal Members here. The Government are always talking about their enthusiasm for equal pay. What about equal refunds? Why should there be a greater bonus for employing men than for employing women?

Then there is the china clay industry that vitally affects Cornwall and the West Country. Next, there is the question of stone and slate quarries, affecting Wales and many other areas. There is also reference to the really vital question whether


the construction industry should not be treated like any other industrial undertaking, whether the building industry should not be treated as an industrial undertaking, whether it is right that the cost of housing should be raised by the impact of this tax, and the way in which the building industry is not getting one penny by way of refund and certainly no premium.

Those points are taken from the first 15 Amendments—one quarter only of the Amendments to Clause 1. Is it suggested by the expert who advises the Government, or have the Government thought for themselves, and, if so, do they suggest, that those Amendments should be discussed in the first quarter of the time allowed for Clause 1—say, 10 minutes for each of those vital Amendments? When we come to examine what will happen on the Committee stage we see how utterly ludicrous, unfair and ungenerous are the Government's proposals in their Motion.

The Government have already put down live Amendments to the Clause, some of them their second or even third thoughts about the form which certain parts of the Clause should take, but not one of those five Amendments comes before the first of the six items I mentioned. It would be perfectly reasonable for the House to spend the whole of the four hours allotted to the Clause on the six items I have listed, but then the five important Government Amendments would have to be moved without explanation and the House would have to accept them on the nod or vote on them without hearing what they were intended to do. Plainly., our proposal to have 16 hours for these 60 Amendments is eminently sensible and much nearer what is right than the idea which the expert who advises the Government, or the Government themselves, seem to have.

The Clause deals with refunds, and as it stands it deals with mining, quarrying, transport, agriculture and fisheries. The Government have already proposed Amendments to add opencast coal mining and new definitions of the transport section of an industrial undertaking coming within Clauses 1 and 2, together with a quite incomprehensible range of establishments dealing with research and training. But, quite apart from concerns originally in the Bill and those which the

Government propose to add, every activity and every person who will have to pay the tax and who thinks that it is unfair is trying to get in under Clause 2 by saying that he should have a refund. All non-industrial activities which are severely adversely affected are trying to come into the Clause by Amendment.

The Government propose seven hours for 123 Amendments to Clause 2. Again, assuming that only half of them were considered, that would allow less than seven minutes for each Amendment. The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) did not think that many of these topics needed to be debated extensively. I do not know how far he takes that principle. Those affected may not be major interests, but they may have a complicated case to present. Are they to do in a couple of sentences and give others longer time? We propose that the total time on this Clause should be 24 hours, which would allow 24 minutes for each, assuming that only half the Amendments were taken.

This is the vital Clause which determines whether the tax bites or not. The Chief Secretary made the extraordinary remark that there were really only three or four major topics. I do not know whether this idea came from the unspecified expert.

Mr. Bellenger: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that, when we dealt with the Purchase Tax, there were just as many Amendments, or at least a very great many, and they were telescoped by the Chair into a somewhat similar series. That is what I had in mind when I said that a lot of these Amendments could be dealt with in that way.

Sir J. Hobson: That is a matter for the Chair. It may well be that some could be taken together. I was just coming to the point that the Chief Secretary made, that there were only three or four problems arising out of the Bill that needed to be discussed. We have tabulated for convenience on the Notice Paper a grouping of the sections under Clause 2 and the interests that they affect, and there are 24 major topics to which we should like to devote two hours each. If we took only 20 of them at an hour each, it would take 20 hours compared with the total of seven hours which the Government are proposing for the Clause.
Let us look at the grouping of some of the Amendments. No. 18 contains 11 Amendments dealing with agriculture. Is it too much to expect to spend one hour discussing agriculture on Clause 2 and the impact of the Bill on farmers? Let us give it an hour. No. 19 deals with part-time workers. There are four Amendments of vital importance to many of our constituents. I do not suppose hon. Members have more letters on any other subject than part-time workers. No. 20 deals with disabled employees. Are Government supporters not interested in the problem of disabled employees and the impact of the Bill on them? An hour would not be too long to discuss that topic. On these groupings alone we have three hours.
Then we come to visible and invisible exports. Reference was made just now to banking and City insurance and the vast interests in this country. What effect will the Bill have on them? Is an hour too much to devote to the interests of our invisible exporters? One of the problems that will arise concerns the headquarters of exporting houses that have no trade in this country except that represented by their headquarters. There ought to be an hour for this discussion.
Take the tourist industry. Cannot we devote an hour to the hotel, catering and tourist industry? Are hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that that is much too long? That is another grouping in which we have five or six Amendments vitally affecting many areas of the country. They are to be squeezed into the seven hours that the Government propose to give to Clause 2.
Another very important topic is the nationalised gas and electricity industries and the relation that they will bear to the situation of direct competition with private industry. We should discuss whether we shall be treating fairly the nationalised industries and the private industries that will be affected in a different way by the proposed tax. Is an hour too much for discussing that group of Amendments?
Another matter that I should have thought was of considerable interest to the cultural interests of the country is stationery and books. We ought to discuss whether it is right that we should impose a new tax upon learning and

upon the distribution of literature. I know that some of it is obscene; we discuss it from time to time. But I should not have thought it was asking too much that we should discuss the printing and book industry, which will be vitally affected by the new tax.
Another matter that deserves discussion is our transport services and their competition in relation to the nationalised industries and their competition with the transport elements of industrial and non-industrial firms.
There is also, under Clause 2, the problem of the development areas. Ought they not to be considered for refund under this Clause? There is also the retail trade. This affects the co-operative societies. It affects food and the distribution of ordinary household goods of concern to every household in the country. Is an hour too much to consider the effect of imposing the tax on that interest of the community?
Laundries and dry cleaning are important for people other than those who want to get their washing done because their wives will not do it. This industry affects schools, hospitals and many industrial activities and provides many of the services which they require. Laundry and dry cleaning is a trade which has the highest labour content and will be harder hit by this tax than any other industry. The percentage of the labour content of the costing of the laundry and dry cleaning industry is higher than that of any other industry. Surely, no one could say that an hour was unreasonable for this industry. The construction industry, if it is not under Clause 1, must be under Clause 2, yet we are to be allowed only an hour to discuss these vital matters.
The definition of "establishment" and "qualifying employment" is vitally important and something on which the Bill is likely to break down. Has the Government considered the effect on the motor industry? A premium is to be given to those premises in which a machine is put together, but there is to be no refund in respect of premises in which spare parts are stored. Spare parts are a most important aspect of exports. An export business cannot be run properly unless spare parts are provided. The impact will be irrelevant


and absurd. Apart from that, there is wholesale distribution and sport and recreation.
If one hour is allowed for each of these groups of topics, each one of which I would have thought hon. Members would regard as important, it would take 20 hours, which is 13 hours more than the Government propose. Further, there would still be 42 Amendments which will not be included in these groupings. When we consider that only seven hours are to be allowed for these subjects, it is plain that no more than a quarter of the Amendments will be discussed in Committee, particularly if the Government endeavour to stand by this absurd timetable and if their back benchers support their endeavours.
The Government have tabled nine Amendments to this Clause, some of which are pretty extraordinary and abstruse. They come quite late in the list and it may be that many of them will have to be accepted or voted upon without arty explanation from the Government as to what they mean or are intended to do.
This is by no means the end of the Bill, although it is the guts of it. Important proposals are contained in later Clauses. Clause 3 deals with public authorities and nationalised industries and Clause 4 with local authorities and bodies associated with local authorities. To these matters the Government proposes to give 2½ hours. This is too little even for the hon. Members for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). They feel that this is inadequate and they are pressing for 3½hours for these two Clauses.
Working again on my basis of taking only half the Amendments, this would mean only seven minutes for each Amendment. In our timetable we are allowing half an hour more than that proposed by the hon. Members for Woolwich, West and Fife, West. They think that 3½ hours is needed for the nationalised industries and the local authorities. We suggest four hours. It is a good indication that our timetable is about right.
I shall not waste time on the problems of charities and qualifying homes in Clauses 5 and 6, although there is a great deal to be said about them and all too

little time given by the Government. But when we come to the enforcement and new criminal offences created by the Bill I am horrified at the ideas of the Government.
Clause 7(5) is about the most monstrous provision of tax legislation I have ever seen. It provides that the rights of citizens and charities to repayments under the Bill shall be at such times, in such manner and subject to such conditions as the appropriate Minister, with, of course, the consent of the Treasury, shall determine. Therefore, the citizen whose vital interests are affected is to be placed at the sole discretion of a Minister of the Crown.
I do not know how a Government who are always talking about law reform and their belief in the rule of law can have the effrontery to put forward a Bill of this nature and I regret that the Attorney-General, whose presence we had the honour of having a few minutes ago, is not here to tell us what he thinks about a proposal which would place in the hands of the Executive sole discretion to decide how and when and how much people should be repaid under the Bill.
It is a mockery to think that the Bill gives any citizens any rights. Not only is enforcement and repayment in the hands of Ministers, but throughout the Bill discretion is given to Ministers to hand out bonuses as they think fit without any provisions that they should lay an Order, or for delegated authority, or for Statutory Instruments, or for a report to the House on how they have been exercising their powers.
Clauses 1, 2 and 10 contain provisions giving the appropriate Minister absolute discretion as to whether an individual or separate establishment should have a refund or bonus—and all without any form either of recourse to the courts or to Parliamentary supervision. This is a scandalous proposal. Yet the Government propose only 2½ hours to discuss 31 Amendments affecting that vital principle —about five minutes for each of them.
We suggest 6½ hours and that is perhaps too little. But the reason we suggest so little for this vital Clause is that eight days seemed to us the most we could ask and we have to squeeze eight days even into the appropriate divisions between sections, so that all we could


spare of the eight-day programme was 6½hours to discuss the way in which citizens are to be deprived of any access to the courts and are to be without right to enforce against the Crown their rights to repayment which the Bill purports to give.
Clause 10 raises important issues of divisions of establishments and a qualifying employment. These are all big questions which will affect the good administration of the Bill, but which are to depend a great deal on the say-so of Ministers, who will be able to hand out public bonuses to individual establishments without supervision because they think it convenient.
Having analysed how the timetable will affect consideration of the Committee stage of the Bill, I recall what happened when the Transport Act, 1962, was going through the House. The then Opposition did not find that Measure at all agreeable, and wished to contest it hotly. They did so hotly—in 35 sittings of Standing Committee E. That Committee took a total of 91 hours 15 minutes in Committee on the Bill. Yet the Government propose 24 hours for a Bill affecting interests far more varied than those affected by the Transport Bill.
I was amazed to hear the Lord President of the Council advance, as one of his arguments in support of this policy, that it would give time to discuss major Amendments to the Bill. I do not know whether I was right in inferring from that that he did not think that the minor interests were worth discussing. I doubt if those who have the minor interest will be much attracted by that argument. We can recall some of those which we have had from our constituencies and which are dealt with on the Notice Paper. There are the bakeries attached to retail shops, storage of spares for the motor industry, laundries, the electrical industry, the London Library, the Greenwich Hospital, the General Dental Council, the local authority associations, and so on.
We shall simply not have time to deal with all the minor interests, which for the people affected, are very important interests. If the basis upon which this Government now proposes that the House should deal with legislation is that

one should only discuss the major issues in Committee and never any minor ones, then it is goodbye to the rights of the minor interests and the protection that they are supposed to get from the House of Commons.
The Government's proposal to take this Bill in Committee in a period of three days is a cynical abuse of their Parliamentary majority. Anyone who has considered, or knows anything about the Bill knows perfectly well that it is a gross injustice to many people and ought to be defeated.

11.3 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: We take endless trouble in this House, guarding people against the haphazard disasters of life, yet here is a Measure which is certainly haphazard and certainly a disaster. It is certainly extremely damaging to the City of London, which earns the money which the Government squanders. [Interruption.] Some hon. Members opposite like to "nobble" the City of London. They think that money is very easy to make and that all gold is fairy gold. They are to nationalise steel with fairy gold. It will be very interesting to see where that comes from.
Money, in the face of world competition, is not at all easy to make and many people do not make it. Someone has to pay for the follies of the Government, and it matters far less who makes the money as that the money should get made for this country. That is just what this Bill will cripple. Yet it is proposed that we should skate over it and pass it, undigested in three days, in spite of the fact that it affects almost everyone's life in a way which is at yet, quite undiscussed in detail and quite un-thought-out by the Government.
It may be said there is a shortage of time. Of course there is. There is a world shortage of time. The Prime Minister is short of time in Russia. [Interruption.] He is hurrying home so fast that he will be able to take part in this debate. Even this Government cannot create more time by inflation. We still have to live on 24 hours a day. There have been suggestions that we should sit in the mornings. For me, the mornings are devoted to my constituents. During the nine months that I have been


here, have written more than 15,000 letters, which is over 70 every day. That is how I spend my mornings.
But at least we can use our time wisely. If I had been here longer I might criticise the procedure of the House, as some Members opposite have done. It is easy to say that by staying up all night we behave in a way which, if followed by ordinary people, would lead to their being considered incompetent or dissolute, and that our procedure is Byzantine in its complexity and that our agenda, the Order Paper, is partly incomprehensible and partly in dialect, that our premises are charming but totally inadequate, and that we should limit the length of speeches. I have even heard it suggested that to make better use of our time, local newspapers should be forbidden to report the speeches of local Members; or that we should bring in consultants to reorganise our habits, as has been done with such success recently at the Zoo.
But it seems to me that this House is not a sausage machine for producing legislation. It is not even a device to keep the 600 or so most tiresome Welshmen, Scotsmen and Englishmen out of mischief. It seems to me that it is a protesting machine and a protecting machine, or mainly so, and if ever there were a time for protesting and a need for protecting it is now, on this Bill—and it cannot be done in three days.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I should like to add a few words of protest to those which have been made already on the Motion and these Amendments. I greatly enjoyed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith). He made a number of very important points, not the least of which was that on which he sat down. He has' impressed us all with his wisdom, and the experience which he brings to the House, and if he were going to sit down I am sure that it would not be on a sharp point. The point which he made in a conclusion was the role of the House in protesting and protecting, and it is that point with which I want to deal.
In this field of their activities, as in so many others, the Government are

heading for trouble. In refusing to give adequate time to debate the Bill they are guilty of nothing short of criminal folly. This is a new tax. The fact that we are having it in two Bills is merely one manifestation of the Government's incompetence. It introduces wholly new principles and it will make a new impact on the economy of the country. The collection of the premium and the payment of the refunds are being handled by new machinery and it is in the new machinery that the tax can be said, in the words of one of my hon. Friends, to have a wholly revolutionary impact.
It is manifest that the Bill has been drafted in great haste. It is inconceivable that the Government has got it right first time. In fact, we know that they have not, for they have had to make substantial changes, some even before the Bill was published—changes in respect of charities, agriculture, forestry, the disabled, mines and quarries and others. Then the Bill was published, and even then they did not get it right.
No fewer than 28 Government Amendments have been tabled to it, some of them, of course, merely drafting Amendments, but others of real substance—the introduction in Clause 1 of training establishments, the introduction in Clause 2 of opencast mining, the definition in Clause 5 of Scottish charities, a most important point, in Clause 6 changes in the definition of qualified household, in Clause 10 changes in the definition of forestry and of non-qualifying activities, elsewhere a provision relating to road transport, and, perhaps most important of all, an Amendment about where employers are to be allowed to treat different premises as a single establishment.
The point is: who knows how many are to come? Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) said earlier this evening, some of these Amendments are themselves already being amended. One saw on the Notice Paper on 7th July two Amendments linking employers with establishments, Amendments No. 224 and 225, relating to the 50 per cent. rule. Those do not now appear, and have been replaced by other Amendments to treat them in a different way—the Government's third thoughts. There is one


about associated establishments, a Government Amendment having been taken off the Notice Paper and replaced by another treating the matter in a way significantly different.
Already, a pattern is emerging which bears a disastrous likeness to the pattern we had last year. That was a new tax based on new principles, making a new impact with new machinery. Changed as it was, in great haste and under great pressure, did they get it right the first time then? No; they did not. Over 400 Government Amendments were tabled to the Finance Bill last year, with whole new Clauses and new Schedules, the great majority introduced as the result of debate in the House and in Committee, and it is of debate in the House and in Committee the Government are, by their Motion, seeking tonight to deprive us. The result was confusion.
That debate on that occasion led to the elimination of what would otherwise have been a great many injustices and a great many quite intolerable anomalies. Day after day—indeed, night after night —we debated that Bill and we persuaded the Government to accept some Amendments. On a great many more they agreed we had a point. The Chief Secretary will remember that he was sometimes in difficulty in finding different words for saying, "We think there is an important point here; we will take it back and look at it again." Over and over again that happened last year on the Finance Bill, with its two new taxes introducing new principles, and as a result dozens and dozens of Government Amendments were tabled on Report, and tabled only because they had been raised by hon. Members in Committee.
This was Parliament at its best. This was Parliament performing its true function as a check on the Executive, as a scrutineer of legislation—not fractious opposition merely bent on delaying Government business, but ruthless scrutiny of legislation brought by the Government. When we recollect, as I recollected on another occasion a few days ago, the Prime Minister's taunt about the tomfoolery he accused the Opposition of getting up to last year, I think that a most unworthy accusation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Typical."]—a typical

accusation; a foolish and petulant outburst by one who really felt he would like to do without Parliament altogether.
On the Selective Employment Payments Bill, what shall we find? Exactly the same factors apply. The Bill has been introduced in the same haste and with the same ill-thought-out consideration given to it. Yet, on this occasion, we shall have no debates. Hundreds of Amendments which have been tabled by hon. Members on both sides will receive no discussion. The point has been made that they might not have been selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means. We shall never know. They will never have a chance to be selected, let alone debated.
All over the country, trade associations, bodies representing all sorts of different activities and hundreds of individuals seriously concerned about the impact of the tax and its associated operations, the interest-free loan and the rest of it, have spent many days and in some cases weeks in drafting Amendments, preparing cases and circulating hon. Members of the House with their arguments. If other hon. Members' experience is anything like mine, they have files two or three inches thick, full of representations made to them about the Bill. They are concerned about the critical impact that it will have on their operations, and they regard them as very serious and of great importance in many cases. However, on a great majority of those matters, there will be no debate at all.
I was appalled at the speech which the Chief Secretary made in a previous debate, when he tried to justify the Guillotine by reference to debates that had taken place on different Motions, on different Bills and at different times. It was quite astonishing.
There are issues raised in the Bill on which all hon. Members have had dozens of representations, and they have hardly been canvassed in the House at all. There are pages and pages of Amendments on the Notice Paper which have been scarcely touched in the debates that we have had hitherto. To try to use those debates as a justification for this Motion is utterly monstrous.
Let me remind the House of one other matter. Even with all last year's debates, and the hundreds of Amendments which


the Government tabled as a result, they still came along this year and had to grovel before the House for having made a monumental miscalculation that was to cost about £ 100 million in relief which was given away and which ought not to have been. In spite of all the debates, they had to do that.
We know that the Bill is riddled with anomalies and full of inconsistencies and nonsenses. We know that it is full of a great many obscurities. Yet we shall he denied any opportunity to point to the inconsistencies and anomalies, and the Government are denying themselves any opportunity to try and explain the obscurities.
What will the result be? It will be that firms and businesses of all sorts will, as they did last year, make dispositions on the basis of what they think the Bill says. They will arrange their businesses and operations on the basis of what they think it is intended to do. Next year, the Government will come along and say, "That is not what we meant at all, and, if you think that is what it meant, we shall introduce an Amendment to change it", and not one word of apology will come from the Dispatch Box. They will say that it is one of the hazards of a Government of this sort.
That is the kind of thing which is far more likely to bring the Government and Parliament into disrepute than a debate on the kind of gagging Motion which is before the House this evening. Some hon. Members have said that the debate on which we are engaged now is the sort of thing which is likely to damage Parliament's reputation.
I disagree with them. What damages Parliament's reputation is when legislation which is manifestly incompetently drafted and ill-thought out is foisted on the country and it causes chaos and confusion to the people who have to be governed by it. This is what brings the House into disrepute and makes people "fed up" with the activities of Government. That is what the Front Bench opposite are engaged in doing now. They are trying to make sure that this slim little Bill becomes law without allowing us to discuss it. The Bill consists of a very

few pages, but it carries with it the disposition of enormous sums of money which can have a profound influence on the pattern of the economy and the development of individual firms. All this may happen under legislation which will have been incompletely and inadequately scrutinised.
This is the sort of thing which makes a mockery of our whole system of Parliamentary democracy, and I cannot believe that we could ever be justified in trying to pass through a Bill of this kind on the sort of programme which the Government have laid down in their Motion. I think that the Amendment moved by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), which spells out the programme for a substantially extended debate, is the least that we can do in justice to the tens of thousands of employers who will be governed by this Measure.
This Motion cannot go unchallenged. I must add my word of protest to those which have already come from this side of the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Sir Frederic Bennett.

Mr. William Baxter (West Stirling-shire): On a point of order. In view of the fact that every speech that I have heard this afternoon has been more or less—  [Interruption.] How dare you speak to me like that. Hold your tongue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] All the speeches that I have heard this afternoon and evening have been tedious repetition of an argument which can have no validity at all, in view of the fact that when the decision has to be made there can be no dubiety about the result. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] In view of the tedious repetition of the speeches which have been made, have I your permission to move the Closure of this debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member must leave the Chair to decide what is in order. The Chair has not heard anything that is out of order, and I am not in a position to accept the Closure, anyway. Sir Frederic Bennett.

Mr. W. Baxter: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have not at any time questioned the correctness or the rights of the Chair. All that I asked for is the Chair's guidance in a matter of some importance. The country is in some difficulty at the moment, and it should hear the views of hon. Members on both sides of the House on the problems confronting us. Instead of that, we are wasting our and the country's time discussing a matter which is of no moment, or no importance, namely, whether the Closure should be taken or should not be moved. I beg leave to suggest that the time is now opportune for us to move the Closure of the debate so as to get on to the substance of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with the point of order raised by the hon. Member. I am not in a position to accept the Closure. The debate must continue. Sir Frederick Bennett.

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) to talk of tedious repetition when it is part of the duty of the Chair to see that hon. Members do not indulge in that? Is not this a criticism of the Chair, and should it be made in this House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have made it clear that the Chair is in control and has not heard anything out of order. I called the next hon. Member to speak.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: On a point of order.

Mr. Peyton: Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) wishes to raise a point of order.

Mr. Winterbottom: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to say "Shut up" when another hon. Member is raising a legitimate point of order, particularly when the hon. Gentleman who said "Shut up" is known to display one of the worst tempers to servants of the House?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair did not hear the remark about which the hon. Member complains. If such a remark was made it were better not. I would

be grateful if hon. Members would allow the debate to continue.

Mr. Peyton: On a point of order. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), who is gracing our debate for the first time, said a moment ago, in a very audible tone, "Hold your tongue ". May I ask, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether that is an acceptable and proper way for an hon. Gentleman to address you?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would ask hon. Members to consider their dignity and that of the House and allow the debate to continue.

Mr. W. Baxter: Further to that point of order. As the remark of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton)—that this is the first time I have been in the Chamber this afternoon—is quite untrue, may I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to ask the hon. Gentleman to—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. Hon. Members must allow the debate to continue. Sir Frederic Bennett.

11.31 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: There is, perhaps, some significance in the fact that the only contributions from hon. Gentlemen opposite since this important Amendment was moved have been a series of points of order to try to stifle the debate. In other words, hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to inflict a guillotine even on a guillotine debate. This is surely—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I suggest that the hon. Member would facilitate his own speech if he did not refer to previous points of order which have already wasted some of the time of the House.

Sir F. Bennett: The number of times I have been called to speak and have been unable to do so must be almost a record. Perhaps, therefore, I might be forgiven a slight transgression.
There is no need for any of my hon. Friends to apologise for continuing to press this Amendment, and any other, up to the last possible moment that the Chair permits. It is our duty to do so, and if there is an element of repetition in our remarks—not tedious repetition;


if that were the case you would put a stop to it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—it is merely because we are striving to defend the rights of the House.
There must, of course, be an element of repetition, because we are fighting for a cause. Without referring to the previous points of order, it is obvious that not one hon. Gentleman opposite can be found to stand up and defend the Government's case. There are only two possible reasons for that. Either hon. Gentlemen opposite are ashamed of the Government, or they are too busily engaged elsewhere in the building, waiting for a Division to be called.
Why is it that hon. Gentlemen opposite are sitting in their serried ranks and will not rise? There is no shortage of time tonight. There have been many occasions during the day when they could have spoken. I have been an hon. Member when my party has been in power and in opposition and I appreciate that there are times when back benchers are asked to curtail their remarks. But that is not the case in this debate. This is a free-ranging debate which can go on all night. Why have hon. Gentlemen opposite not rushed to the defence of the Government?

Mr. James Thin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friends and I are content, since the complaint of hon. Gentlemen opposite is that they are not allowed sufficient time to express their objections, to express our support for the Government in the Lobby?

Sir F. Bennett: I quite agree with the hon. Member when he says that because of the weakness of the Government's case; but I also hope, in view of what he has just said, that he will not support any move for the Closure of this debate, if and when that comes. We shall watch with interest to see which way the hon. Member votes if such a move is made.
Reference was made earlier tonight to the number of letters which have been received by hon. Members. As one who has been a Member of this House for 15 years I can say that I do not remember an occasion when I have received such a number of letters, and such a variety of letters, as I have on this one single question. These people

have interests which would never get a hearing unless they try to get that by way of writing to their M.P., and, as is my duty and undoubtedly the duty of many of my colleagues on this side of the House, we have forwarded those letters, with covering letters of our own, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
If we had had any constructive answers from the Chancellor we might not need this kind of debate, but my files—and I am sure that my hon. Friends have exactly the same experience—show that in 90 per cent. of the cases there has been an acknowledgment from a secretary and nothing more, even although these letters have been pending, in some cases, for as much as six weeks.
In other cases, the letters have been forwarded to other Ministers in the hope that they will defend a tax which those Ministers are themselves unhappy about in any case. Of course, when one is being pressed by constituents for an answer, one is always forced back on to the necessity of asking for more time. There have been no letters which one can forward to one's constituents, and I know that that is not the result of a deliberate discourtesy. The reason is simply that Ministers do not know the answers themselves.
This is one reason why there should be further time for debate; and there is another. Earlier, there was the suggestion by, I think, the Chief Secretary, that we should not go too wide because there would be only a short time on the Committee stage of this Bill since there had been plenty of time allotted for speeches when the relevant Clause was considered during our discussions on the Finance Bill. That argument, if I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, comes very close to cheating, because my right hon. and hon. Friends exercised considerable restraint when the Clause was debated on the Finance Bill.
We could have kept the House sitting much longer than it did, but what happened? We foolishly listened to the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary and relied on their word of honour that there would be ample time when this separate Bill was discussed. All I would say—and that by way of selfcriticism—is that I shall never again be fooled by the promises of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Sir D. Glover: May I confirm what my hon. Friend has just said? My hon. Friend told me that he would not speak on that part of the Finance Bill because he had been assured that there would be ample time for discussing this very topic when we came to this Bill.

Sir F. Bennett: I thank my hon. Friend.
I want to point out that not only I but other hon. Members have had a very large number of genuine constituency interests which we have held back because we thought there would be ample time in discussions on this Bill. Now, if this Guillotine is approved, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who can express their views only through their back-bench M.P. will not be heard at all.
We are told that there will be five minutes for some parts of the Bill, hut, with two Front Bench speakers each time, how is the back bencher likely to fare? It is complete nonsense for the Chief Secretary to make that sort of remark. This is a tax which is becoming increasingly unpopular, not only in this House, but in the country as well; and yet right hon. and hon. Members opposite are determined to achieve what they want in the shortest possible time.
I would like to mention that part of Britain which I represent. In the West Country, literally dozens of small interests will be affected by the Bill, as will other parts of the country where no alternative forms of employment are available. All, naturally and quite rightly, want their views to be heard in the House, and I can only add that I feel some sense of shame now I realise that I did not press the very genuine cause of these people when we discussed the Clause on the Finance Bill, but relied, instead, on the provenly false word of right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) observed a moment ago, what is really depressing for the House and degrading for hon. Members opposite is that not one hon. Member opposite has the courage to get to his feet to try to justify the action which the Government are taking.
Very few hon. Members opposite are present. They will, no doubt, when the bells go, emerge from the Tea Room, or whatever other gloomy haunt they are inhabiting, to support the Government. When, however, it comes to putting forward reasoned argument to justify what the Government are doing, they are strangely silent.
Even the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who normally does not deprive the House of the wisdom of his counsel at some length, is silent. Even the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has not so far intervened. When hon. Members of such proved Parliamentary ability, such articulate, eloquent Members. find it impossible to justify what the Government are doing in respect of the Amendment, this is a real condemnation of the Government.
The case is absolutely indefensible. The House knows that the Leader of the House gave the clearest impression to all of us when the Bill was being promised that there would be ample opportunity to discuss it. Indeed, we were urged that by its introduction closely after the Finance Bill, there would be opportunity for all the individual problems and cases to be put forward. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury deny that? Was not that clear understanding given to the House? Is it really suggested that three days will be sufficient for this?
This is a Bill that affects every employed person in respect of something that matters most to him, his employment. It affects every industry, every profession, every activity in every one of the 630 constituencies. Is it really suggested that in the course of three Parliamentary days they can he properly discussed and every individual case taken? Not even the Chief Secretary will attempt to justify that.
The shocking thing about the whole of this guillotine Motion is that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are so ashamed of it that they prefer to make rather formal speeches, relying upon the Chief Whip and their forces in the Division Lobby rather than attempting to argue what is plainly an unarguable case.
If ever there were a Bill that required the Parliamentary process, it is this one. Everybody knows that it was produced in a hurry, that it is ill-drafted and that it is riddled with anomalies. Everybody knows that if it is to be turned into a less damaging Measure than it is at present, it requires proper Parliamentary discussion. Will it get it?
I thought that the Leader of the House showed a complete ignorance of the Parliamentary process in respect of Bills in one thin he said earlier this afternoon on the main Motion. He said that we now accepted that it was not wrong to timetable Money Resolutions and Prayers. There is the significant difference, however, that neither Money Resolutions nor Prayers are subject to Amendment. The House has to take them or leave them. A Bill is a totally different matter. It is subject to amendment, and the whole point of the Committee stage is that Amendments should be effective. But once we have a tight Guillotine like this, of only three days, the chances of effective amendment become negligible.
I have had some experience of handling controversial Bills. Any hon. Member who has had that experience knows that if. in the ordinary way, one is handling a controversial Bill, one is disposed to make concessions to the Opposition for the sake of getting on and trying to meet the general wish of the House. But under such a tight Guillotine as this is, Ministers are deprived of that incentive. They know that they only have to sit there and wait until the clock comes to the predetermined hour and then their forces will emerge and vote down the Opposition. They are deprived of the most powerful of all motives for making a concession.
This is the weakness of the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House when he comes to apply it to a Bill, to Amendments to a Bill and, above all, to Amendments to a Bill that has been produced in a hurry, that everyone knows has been produced in a hurry, and which even the Government's advisers feel would have been better to have been submitted to the full and effective Parliamentary process.
The right hon. Gentleman's argument for this tight Guillotine was that time could be wasted in this House. Of course

it could. The right hon. Gentleman gave an example. He described an Amendment to a Bill where, after the Front Bench speakers on either side had spoken, other hon. Members rose, and he thought that time was then being wasted. But if that were really so, and the Chair could be so satisfied, the right hon. Gentleman would have had the remedy of moving the Closure, and if the circumstances were really as he described the Chair would have granted it. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite are not allergic to moving the Closure, and the fact that, apparently, in one case they failed to move it is no reason for exposing the House to this very much more restrictive procedure.
The Leader of the House then said that the Guillotine is all right because it is open to the Opposition to select the most important Amendments and concentrate discussion on them. I am sure that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench will make a very good selection, but they are the last people to claim that they have all wisdom and knowledge. Each of us, as individual Members, with our duty to our constituents, has the right to try to catch the eye of Mr. Speaker in order to raise points that we or our constituents think are important, and not to rely on the selection even of our right hon. Friends, however wise, sensible and far-seeing I am certain they are.
This is the fallacy of concentrating all our Committee stage debate into three days. This is the big issue which arises on this Amendment—whether the Committee stage should cover three days or eight. No hon. Member in any quarter of the House believes that all Amendments of importance can be dealt with sensibly, or at all, in three days. No hon. Member believes that for one moment.
What is suggested is that the needs of the Government are such that certain Amendments must not be discussed at all, and that others must be rushed through. Is that really necessary? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) said earlier, all this could be resolved by sitting for one further Parliamentary week. Why not do that? Why do the Government not do that? If this Bill continues to be the shambles it is, it is upon the Government—and upon the poor, unfortunate


Ministry of Labour in particular—that the blame will fall. That Ministry will have to "carry the can" for the shambles that the Bill will be.
Is it really impossible to take one week more in August if it is actually necessary to have the Royal Assent before the Summer Recess, or in October if that is not necessary? Is it really necessary to have the Royal Assent before the Summer Recess? The Chief Secretary knows perfectly well that Governments make their administrative arrangements well ahead of the passage of a Measure through Parliament. The Minister of Land and Natural Resources announced that he was going ahead with preparations for the Land Commission when the recent Dissolution halted his Bill in its tracks. Rightly or wrongly, he was going ahead with preparations.
It is a false argument to say that arrangements could not be made by February unless the Royal Assent was obtained before August. I have had experience of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and I know that every Department makes provisional arrangements on an administrative basis. Is the Chief Secretary to say that the Ministry of Labour is so incompetent that unless the Royal Assent is obtained by August that Department will be unable to administer the Measure by February? If it is to be said I would rather it were said by the hon. Lady who is at present in charge of the Department, because such a damning statement should be made by the Ministry itself. It may not be an efficient Department, but it is not so bad as that. The Chief Secretary knows that the Department could do it perfectly well.
The reason is that this is an embarrassing Bill for the Government. They want to rush it through and telescope the discussion in three days in August when most of our constituents are away on holiday in the hope that it can be got out of the way and quickly forgotten. That is the real motive behind this procedure. To do that the Government are prepared to risk not only the working of the Parliamentary process which it is certainly their duty to defend—the Leader of the House has duties to the House as well as to the Government—but they are prepared to make the

Measure worse than it need be because it will not have been properly examined.
The House would be unlikely to take that from a Government of proved efficiency. We find it particularly difficult to accept it from a Government which in three and a half months have reduced the economy of the country to a shambles.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter): has made a devastating case against the Government timetable in contradistinction to his devastating case for our Amendment.
I think that I am within the recollection of the House in saying that during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill—to reinforce the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett)—many hon. Members restrained themselves, but the Government on two separate occasions moved the Closure thereby cutting out a large number of hon. Members who desired to express views on the then Clause 42 of the Finance Bill dealing with this subject. It is very unfair for the Leader of the House to bring this Motion to the House bearing in mind that fact on top of the fact that we had a very clear understanding that there was to be adequate time for discussion of this Bill. That was one of the excuses put out at the time against our representations that this Bill was not available at the time when the Budget debates took place. The Chief Secretary nods. If he thinks that this is adequate time, I do not know what to say to him.
We have had a mass of representations and over the week-end we have had contacts with constituents and conversation after conversation on this matter. There is no shadow of doubt that this new tax is upsetting a vast number of people. There is a vast number of separate issues and no ingenuity of the occupant of the Chair, even if he were given the opportunity, could have grouped the Amendments in a fashion which would allow hon. Members adequate time to deal with the specific cases. They are not the same. They are quite different for different industries.
I have heard talk tonight about invisible exports. But it is not even as simple as


that. The complications are enormous. I have in my constituency and the surround ing, area—I mentioned this in an earlier debate, but it is so important that I think I should mention it again—an association of exporters of raw materials and yarn. It is a 100 per cent. export. But, of course, they are merchants. They are not invisible. They are not even a service. They are 100 per cent. exporters. Not only do they not get their money back, but they get "stung". Where am I going to bring that matter up under this timetable? I am fairly well versed in looking at these things, but I cannot find the place where can raise that matter.
This is vital to what the Government want. Half the crisis into which they have got us could be solved to a great extent if we could increase our country's exports. Yet the Government are biting the very hand that wants to feed us. We are riot given time adequately to discuss this.
I am not tremendously surprised that there is no rush of blood on the benches opposite to defend this Motion because all through Clause 42, as it then was, of the Finance Bill in Committee I cannot remember—there may have been one, though I sat through almost every minute of the debate—one single speech in favour of this tax, except, of course, for the Treasury bleets, as I call them—the hand-outs from the civil servants, Mr. Kaldor and all the rest, on this matter. As I say, there may have been one speech which I did not hear; I left the debate to get a meal, but there was hardly one.
This is not a controversial Bill in the ordinary context of this place where lots of Bills are controversial. It is controversial right across the House. In the time that I have been here—it is not all that long but it is longer than some hon. Members have been here—I do not remember an instance of a guillotine Motion being applied to a Bill of this character. It is applied to something that Government supporters on the whole support and feel is necessary. Of course, the Opposition of the day in all probability thinks the opposite, but the Government, suporters basically support it. In this instance, I know only too well that right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Members opposite do not like this tax at all.
They have been told by their constituents, by thousands, to oppose it, to do something about it or to get them excluded. This, as I say, is controversial right across the House.
If there ever was a case where adequate time should be given for the representations of the people to be heard by both sides of the House, this is it. For the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to deny that chance to the House is a travesty of democracy and an insult to the nation.

11.59 p.m.

Sir John Eden: I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) the same experience of having been prevented from speaking on Clause 42 of the Finance Bill and of advancing some arguments in protest against this new tax. This was because the Government Chief Whip, or Deputy Chief Whip as he then was, moved the Closure and curtailed the debate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: He has been promoted.

Sir J. Eden: Yes, as my right hon. Friend says, he has been promoted—perhaps for his services to the Selective Employment Tax. But now, debate on the Finance Bill having been curtailed in that way, the Government bring forward this timetable Motion which will make debate on most important Amendments virtually impossible.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have made out a very strong case in support of Amendment No. 3 and the detailed proposals in Amendment No. 6. I had hoped to have an opportunity in Committee to raise several extremely important points which have been represented to me by constituents, and even at this late stage I hope that the Leader of the House and the Chief Secretary will give full consideration to Amendment No. 6. It is not an outrageous demand at all. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) pointed out, even if the Opposition's proposals were taken in full very little time would be allowed for debate.
I want a chance to talk about the premiums at greater length than the Motion will allow. I want to discuss


the position in which my local authority will be put by the new tax. Hon. Members on both sides of the House ought to have an opportunity to refer in greater detail to the position in which, for example, the disabled, pensioners, part-time workers, domestic workers and others will be put by the tax. I have in mind the significant example of a firm which employs only draughtsmen and renders a most valuable service primarily to exporting firms. It has been arbitrarily singled out for adverse treatment and the tax has virtually finished that enterprise altogether.
Some protests so far made both inside and outside the House have already yielded results in quite substantial concessions in the tax affecting particular industries and enterprises. Who can tell what further opportunities for protest may yield? The right hon. Gentleman will recognise that the cases advanced, apparently in direct representation to the Chancellor, the Minister of Labour or other Ministers responsible for the well-being of certain industries and services, have been well founded and have been taken into account in the changes which the Government have themselves proposed. That aspect is probably most important of all, and that makes it all the more necessary that the various wide-ranging impositions of the tax should be fully debated in the House.
I wonder why the Government decided to bring in the timetable Motion even before the Committee stage of the Bill had got under way. I am sure it was not because they felt that already sufficient attention had been given to the new taxation proposals during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill, because they themselves will be seeking the opportunity of the Committee stage of this Bill to make a number of important and significant Amendments to their original proposals.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) and others touched on the point most effectively when they pointed out that the Government are becoming increasingly resentful of criticism of any kind. They seem to regard it as a wrongful use of the democratic right of free Parliamentary

debate and free speech to criticise the Government's proposals. But, as the Government have shown time and again, those proposals are of such a nature and have been brought forward in such haste that they make criticism very essential. In previous Measures, they have had to make substantial alterations to their proposals.
If the timetable is as badly jammed as the Leader of the House would have us believe, if it is so impossible for him to make any concession on these Amendments to give us a reasonable opportunity to discuss, even for a short period, the important Amendments on the Notice Paper for the Committee stage of the Bill, the Government have only themselves to blame. It is unnecessary, at this stage in the country's economic difficulties, to bring forward and press ahead with the Iron and Steel Bill. That is another total irrelevancy which is being imported into the legislative programme and foisted on the country. It can do nothing to contribute to the national well-being or our economic solvency. Indeed, it will do a great deal of damage not only on the economic front, not only to the confidence of industry as a whole, but to the respect and regard that overseas investors have for the integrity and capacity of the Government of our country.
I should have thought that the Leader of the House would have recognised the value of spending a little more time in Committee now to save important time later and, more important than time, anguish and confusion throughout industry and commerce. I am equally surprised by the fact that so few hon. Members appear, openly at any rate, to be advancing the sort of causes and speaking on behalf of the sort of cases that have been concerning us on these benches. I say "appear to be". There have been some extremely notable exceptions during earlier debates. I suspect that some hon. Gentlemen referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) as the lecturers who spoke earlier really gave the game away when they said that they had been making representations in private. Private pressure on Ministers is no substitute for open Parliamentary debate. It is here on the Floor of the House that these points should be made.
If hon. Members have been speaking on behalf of certain interests and certain individuals as a result of pressure put on them by their constituents, then they owe it to them to speak openly in the House.

Mr. Henig: Would the hon. Member not agree that our constituents want results and not Members speaking at 12.10 a.m. to show how clever they are?

Sir J. Eden: One of the things which the House would be interested to hear is the results that the hon. Member has achieved by the representations which he has been making silently and furtively at No. 12 Downing Street, or in St. James's Square, or in Committee Room 14. Perhaps he would tell the House on whose behalf he has been speaking. I did riot wish to interrupt the hon. Member's speech, which I found interesting, but he made a point of saying that he had achieved notable results and I wonder on whose behalf he has been speaking. The House would be interested to know for whom the hon. Member and his hon. Friends have been making representations. Perhaps it was for the "co-ops". Certainly, hon. Members have spoken on behalf of the "co-ops".
It is here, in open debate, that these matters should be aired. This is what the House is for and why we have come here. I suspect that many hon. Members opposite, like myself, while they were candidates at the election a few months ago, made firm pledges to the electorate. I suspect that they made clear pledges to the old-age pensioners, to the part-time workers and to the disabled. Dicussion on behalf of these people will not be able to take place unless the Government accept Amendment No. 6. I suspect that hon. Members on that side, as on this, spoke feelingly and sincerely about how they would defend the interests of commercial and industrial enterprises which represented the primary form of employment in their constituencies. I certainly did for the hotel industry, which is strongly represented in my constituency, and one, incidentally, which is most adversely affected by this iniquitous tax. This is an industry on whose behalf I will find it very difficult to speak if the original timetable is adhered to. There will be a further

opportunity of catching the eye of the Chair if the Amendment is accepted.
There are further aspects of the matter which I could raise, but I do not wish to delay the House. I hope that the Leader of the House will not misinterpret the moderation with which we have spoken for lack of concern or lack of anger at the way that the House has been treated. It is most unfair and thoroughly churlish of the Government to have used their power in this way. They have shown themselves not only resentful of criticism, but all too ready to use their Parliamentary power to steamroller an ill-considered, rotten piece of legislation through the House. I have no doubt that they will live to regret this day. The only thing I am concerned with is to see that the Government will not last very much longer.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Bowden: It might be of value to the House if I reply to this debate now. [HON. MEMBERS: "You have not heard it."] I have been here for the greater part of the day and have been absent for about half-an-hour during the period in which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) spoke and I have been given a fair report of what he said.
The debate on the Motion itself was not limited. It took place over a fair amount of time, taking into account earlier precedents, and the whole subject was very well covered. We have gone back, as usual in such debates, over the history of the 18 or so guillotine Motions we have had previously, but in this Motion we are concerned only with the proposal of the Opposition in Amendment No. 3, with which we are considering Amendment No. 6, which would substitute eight days for the three days proposed by the Government and a new panel of divisions.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson), to whom I listened very carefully, went through with great detail the proposals of the Opposition. He dealt with the 300 to 400 Amendments on the Order Paper on the Selective Employment Payments Bill, most of them in the names of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. At this stage, I remind the House that the Motion refers


to the selective employment payments and not to the Selective Employment Tax. Although in the debate we have heard a great deal about the tax, we need only the Third Reading of the Finance Bill to complete discussion of the tax itself. On the S.E.P. Bill we are concerned not with taxation but with payments and repayments.
One hon. Member opposite gave an excellent analysis of what the S.E.P. Bill does when he said that it concerns repayment of the tax paid by the fortunate, the less fortunate and the unfortunate. In that respect, any Amendment to the Bill could perhaps be divided in the same way.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warwick and Leamington, in dealing with each Clause and almost each one of the 300 and more Amendments, forgot to mention one or two things. At one point he referred to the fact that, of course, they may not all be selected. On reflection, he will agree that he forgot to remind the House that, of the 330 Amendments tabled, if one assumes that many of them are not in order, one can equally assume, and accurately assume, that many of them will be grouped. We have had this experience with Purchase Tax, as was mentioned by another hon. Member opposite, when many similar proposals, all related to one particular point, have been grouped together in debate. So it is rather an exaggeration to say that we have before us 330 Amendments to be discussed in Committee in three days.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also seemed to have forgotten during his speech that on what is now Clause 44 of the Finance Bill we had 35½ hours debate on precisely the same points that will be made on S.E.P. We discussed hotels, catering, part-time workers—the disabled. Everyone of them was discussed for 35½ hours on Clause 44.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must decide to whom he is giving way.

Mr. John Farr: The right hon. Gentleman will recall, when he refers to hotel and catering, that we were guillotined on that discussion, and

that there were a good number of hon. Members on this side of the House who never had an opportunity of speaking. We want to be reassured that we will not be faced with the same problem again.

Mr. Bowden: I am not sure that I like the word "guillotined", because when Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, accepts the Closure, whoever happens to be in the Chair, whether the small Chair or the big one, is of the opinion that sufficient debate has taken place. I am not suggesting that many more points can not have been made. I am simply reminding the Committee that we had debated them for something like 35½ hours.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins: The right hon. Gentleman said that we had debated every one of them. I put it to him that we did not debate either private hospitals or old people's homes, because of the Closure. His statement was totally untrue. Will he now withdraw it?

Mr. Bowden: If there is any hon. or right hon. Gentleman who feels that any point has not been adequately discussed I would accept that. But we are already going to have three full days, plus one and a half hours each day for further discussion of the same points which have been discussed for 35½ hours. Those of us with experience of timetabling Bills know that certain things happen. As soon as a timetabling Motion has been accepted, the Opposition look at it afresh, and that will happen on this occasion. The Opposition will look at it afresh and they can do one of two things. They can either choose the first Amendment and talk on it for the full period allowed and argue afterwards that discussion has been stifled, or they can do, as is more generally done by an Opposition—and I have a great deal of experience in this—and sort out the bull points for discussion within that period of time. The result is that one concentrates discussion much more than normal. I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) made the point that debate of a Bill is improved under a timetable. This is true.

Sir F. Bennett: Then why not timetable all Bills?

Mr. Bowden: There is a case for this and I have said so on many occasions. I have given evidence before the Select Committee on Procedure to this effect. It is a question of how it should be done. If it could always be done by agreement between both sides of the House, that would be admirable and accepted by everyone. But it is to be expected that there ar: some Bills that can never be accepted by an Opposition. Is it thought, for one minute, that Her Majesty's present Opposition would agree a timetable Motion on the Iron and Steel Bill?
One would not get that sort of agreement. The proposal I have made is that one might have a committee of senior Members who know their way around legislation, and know Bills from many years of experience, who could, in cold blood, consider a Bill and allocate time for particular parts. I do not know whether will be done in the lifetime of anyone present, but some day it will be done or we shall get into a chaotic situation.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it would be to the advantage of the House and of debate if there were a timetable Motion on all Bills? That is an extremely important view for the Leader of the House to express, for he represents both Opposition and Government. Is he saying that?

Mr. Bowden: I have just said that. I thought that I had made it plain but perhaps I did not. Let me try again. It would not be necessary for every Bill. It would waste time if it were done for all, including independence Bills and those which go through quickly. But I am sure that the majority of Bills introduced by any Government in any session would not lose in any respect if they were considered by a Committee of the House, composed of both sides of the House, which allocated time for that Bill. I know the arguments against that—both the Opposition and the Government arguments—but that is my personal view, and some day it will come.

Mr. R. H. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the kind of Committee which he envisages would allocate only three days for the discussion of a Bill such as this?

Mr. Bowden: Yes, it might very well do so, taking into consideration that there have been 35½ hours on the subject already. Our experience is that timetable Motions mean that we have fewer speeches and very often shorter speeches but that this does not mean that all the points on the Bill and the Amendments are not made. The points of the 330 Amendments on the Order Paper to this Bill will almost all be made if the Opposition so wish. If, on the other hand, they decide to debate only one in 3½ hours, they will not be made. This is a decision for the Opposition—and it is a position in which Oppositions are often placed. I have been asked about Government Amendments. Government speakers will be brief; they never want to continue at length.
I said when I moved the Motion that the Government think that an allocation of three days, plus 1½ hours each day, is adequate. We are still of that opinion. I am sure that if the time is used properly, added to the 35½ hours already spent on exactly the same topics as those covered by the Amendments, we shall have a much more useful debate in Committee on the S.E.P. and in subsequent stages than we should have had otherwise.
The Government have given the matter very careful attention. There is no desire on our part to stifle discussion. But when we are told—I accept the correction of the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) that it was the Press—by the Press that it was the view of the Opposition that 10 days were required for the Committee stage, and when we have heard during the debate that it might take even longer, I am sure that the Government had to take this action and that if the Motion is carried it will be found that the allocation of time which we recommend is correct. I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: We have had in the last few minutes one or two observations from the Leader of the House as to how he thinks perhaps in the future our business may better be conducted with regard to timetables and matters of that sort. May I just say to him that, while I do not totally disagree with what he has said, I do feel that I have at least some justification


for speaking on this topic because we have had in this Session a perfect example of the sort of way in which this can in fact be done.
We were discussing, as the Leader of the House, I am certain, knows, the Industrial Development Bill in Committee upstairs. The Minister in charge of that Bill, the President of the Board of Trade, took what I think the Leader of the House would regard as the somewhat risky move of moving a sittings Motion, on the first day of the Committee, and before any discussion had taken place—action, in a way, not totally unlike what the Leader of the House is asking this House to agree to today on another Bill.
We pointed out to the President of the Board of Trade, before he took that step—because he courteously told us he was going to—that it was likely to waste a whole day, and we told him that we believed it was perfectly possible, with good will and co-operation between both sides, to achieve what he wanted to achieve, which was, consideration of that Bill by a certain date, without inconveniencing over much the Members of that Committee, and by concentrating our debate on the things that mattered. We were assured by the President of the Board of Trade that it was absolutely vital for the business of the Government that that Bill should be finished by, I think, rather over a fortnight ago now. We worked in our Committee and outside the Committee in very close consultation with the Minister in order to achieve the points and objects which the Leader of the House has been explaining to us may perhaps one day come about.
It is not for me to say whether we used our time well or badly on that occasion. All that I can say is that the time which was available to the Committee was short but was used without any repetition, and although some of my hon. Friends were unable to make many points they would have liked to have enlarged upon, on the whole the main things were discussed.
I would suggest to the Leader of the House, therefore, that, if he would follow that example set by his colleague the President of the Board of Trade on that occasion, which was to realise the folly of

trying to rush a Committee unwillingly through a Bill on a timetable which was totally inadequate, and if he would withdraw his timetable and accept ours, I believe the purpose of the discussion of the Bill would be very much better achieved.
What the Leader of the House—I do not say he is deliberately trying to mislead the House, because I am certain he is not—has said to us is that the Bill is a Bill about payments, it has nothing to do with taxation, the taxation came in the Finance Bill. I imagine it was because he thought they were two such totally separate Bills that he gave the assurance that he did to the House, that this was not to be a Money Bill and could be discussed outside. But while he assures the House that these Bills are totally different, he is at the same time reiterating over and over again that we have had 35½ hours' debate on exactly the same topics. Well, how can he explain to the House that on totally different Bills the discussion has been and will be exactly the same?

Mr. Bowden: Just to correct one point, I have not at any time said that the Bill either is likely to be certified as a Money Bill or is not.

Mr. Noble: No, I accept that entirely. But, if the right hon. Gentleman will read the words that he used and which my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. lain Macleod) has already quoted, he will see that, though it was not for him to say, he came as near advising the House that that was so as he could possibly have done.
The Leader of the House suggested that it was possible for us, in the time allotted, to concentrate on what he called the bull points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), in a short but pithy speech, was perhaps over-thoughtful for his Front Bench in referring to them as wise, sensible and far-seeing. But there was a sting in the tail, because, with the wisdom of Solomon, it would be totally impossible for any Front Bench, Government or Opposition, to fit in adequate discussion, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West, made admirably clear to the House in a very careful analysis of the time allotted, in the seven hours for Clause 2 alone, between 20 different subjects.
Again, the Leader of the House was not strictly fair in his analysis. He said that certain Amendments might be out of order, and so they might. He said that certain other Amendments might not be selected, which is equally true. Then he suggested that all the rest could in some miraculous way—and it is not for me to question the capacity of the Chair for mira:les—could be grouped together so that the House could discuss these subjects quite conveniently in the time. But my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) made it clear that there were 20 different groupings, and he went in detail through the various points to show to the House how exceedingly difficult it would be for people not only to talk about their individual Amendments but even to talk about the 20 main groupings and give any reasonable consideration to the problems.
In winding up the last debate, the Chief Secretary seemed to suggest to the House that one criterion on which a Bill should be judged was the number of Amendments pat down about it, and that, because over 300 Amendments had been put down by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides, this was a Bill which automatically came into the guillotine stage. Yet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) reminded the House, on the Finance Bill last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself put down over 400 Amendments. The number of Amendments is not necessarily the right criterion for deciding whether or not a Bill should be guillotined.
I do not know whether the Leader of the House was in the Chamber at the time, but he may have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) explaining the difficulty which a number of hon. Members have had because they have written letters to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about different aspects of the Bill and its effects on their constituents and how he, for one, had had not a single reply. Perhaps I have been luckier than some hon. Members. I had a reply this morning, though not from the Chancellor, because he has very shrewdly farmed out the job to his colleagues. My reply came from the Secretary of State for Scotland, though I am afraid that I cannot tell the

House whether or not it makes any sense, because it arrived just before the debate and I have not had time to study it. There are two separate points in our minds in moving this Amendment. First, the Government have continually given assurances of time in order to get their business through—this was on the Finance Bill—and therefore to that extent this is a reflection on the methods by which they have led the Opposition along and now are letting them down.
Secondly—and this is perhaps the major part of the attack that we feel necessary on this Amendment—we do not have enough time to discuss the many important subjects which affect so many of us in our constituencies. I should therefore like, for a few minutes only, to develop the sort of problems with which, inevitably, we will be faced in discussing within the timetable proposed by the Government the many Amendments which have been tabled by hon. Members on both sides of the House on the problems of Scotland, the problems of Wales, the problems of the development districts, and the regional policies with which they are connected.
These alone could easily take the whole of the seven hours which the Leader of the House has allocated. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman ever attended the Scottish Grand Committee when he was the Chief Whip. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am certain that rumours reached him of the capacity of that Committee to take up great quantities of time. It may be because of that that he has decided that seven hours will squeeze the Scotsmen out, and therefore the problems of that country, and of Wales and the other development districts, will not be listened to by Ministers who remember only too well the promises that they made at the election, but which they are now trying to forget.
The Leader of the House is not up to date if that is the line of thought that he has been going on, because there have been considerable changes in the methods by which the Scottish Grand Committee has been conducting its business since the present Secretary of State and the Minister of State left the Opposition benches. One has read in the


newspapers about young lions springing up to defend the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Eagles."] I apologise to the young eagles. I was merely thinking that the Secretary of State for Scotland and his Minister are pretty old and decrepit Scottish lions. I do not think that many B.E.A. pilots would worry if they got these lions at the back of an aircraft, because during the last two and a half years, when they have been speaking from that Dispatch Box, not once have we heard them roar for Scotland.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member must get back to the Amendment.

Mr. Noble: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. I was misled too much in my analogy between lions and eagles, and I will come back to the timetable.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill affects Scotland more than any other part of the United Kingdom. This has been confirmed by figures which the Treasury has produced after some time, and after a good deal of probing.
I understand that the S.E.P. Bill will have its first allotted day this week immediately after the Prime Minister's statement on the new economic measures which we are to suffer. It is, therefore, certain that most Scottish hon. Members —and I include Scottish hon. Members of the Labour and Liberal Parties—will be concerned about how Scotland is to survive the economic blizzard which the Government have brought upon the United Kingdom as a whole and which will inevitably hit Scotland more severely than other parts of the country. We, therefore, need time to discuss what measures can be taken to prevent Scotland from being so seriously struck.
The Leader of the House is naive if fie believes that the S.E.P. Bill is concerned only with repayment and therefore is not important. He keeps trying to make that point, although it is only through that Measure that S.E.T. bites, for that Bill decides whether people should be in the premium or neutral classes or whether they should get nothing. It must, therefore, be important, particularly for Scotland.
When discussing problems like agriculture, part-time work and so on, Scottish

hon. Members will naturally wish to raise matter affecting parts of Scotland, particularly since there are many part-time workers in Scotland. There are special problems affecting agriculture, education and forestry. The percentage of people employed in the service industries in Scotland is undoubtedly greater than in other parts of the country, and we must have time to discuss this aspect, whether affecting the Highlands, where the main employment is in tourism, shopkeeping, agriculture and forestry, or whether we are debating the problems of the service industries in central Scotland.
Several hon. Members want to speak about the great part which Edinburgh has played in banking and insurance. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may wish to speak on Amendments concerning Leith and areas in Scotland which have been left out of the Industrial Development Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West pointed out, on Clause 2 we will have about three minutes to debate each Amendment. Allowing for the grouping of Amendments and taking into account those not selected, is the Leader of the House not aware that to discuss the problems of Scotland in this matter we should have a considerable time, and that three hours, let alone one hour, would not be sufficient?
The Chief Secretary said the Opposition did not like the S.E.P. Bill and wanted to wring its neck. Is he not aware that that applies to many Measures? A great many Bills—and practically every Finance Bill—are disliked by the Opposition. That has applied throughout the history of Parliament. I suppose that the Opposition have wished to wring the necks of many Measures. However, it has been possible in almost all cases for the legislation to be got through in a reasonable time, with hon. Members being allowed sufficient time to raise genuine doubts and fears.
It is difficult to understand the Government's attitude towards S.E.T. because, although the service industries in Scotland will be badly hit, many manufacturing industries will also be hit. If the Leader of the House had been in Scotland 10 days ago with a party of hon. Members he would have


heard representatives of the great shipbuilding and engineering industries explaining how, although they would apparently be better off because they would get the premium, they might have the greatest possible difficulty in finding the money to pay S.E.T. and keep their businesses going long enough to get the premium. They were building ships which were important because they were for export, but these firms are right up against their bank limit. We all know that under the Chancellor's statement last week the banks will lend no more money and, therefore, somebody will have to cheat because these firms will not be able to claim their premiums until February.
There are many firms in Scotland which are in the growth type of industries, and this is the very type of firm which the President of the Board of Trade has told us would be helped by way of the new investment grants. The fact that they were growth industries meant in itself that they were short of capital, if they had any at all to play with. They had no room at all for manoeuvre. These are the very industries which we particularly want in Scotland; the sort which may not be able to raise from the banks the finance necessary to contribute to the Chancellor what is demanded under a Selective Employment Tax. The surprising thing is that they will not be able to do this simply because of the Chancellor's own action and, because they will not be able to contribute, they will not be able to regain their premiums.
This is a point which ought to be made, and I move very quickly over the problems of the Highlands which have already been summed up by my hon. Friends and by way of two statements from the Highlands Development Board. I see the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but he should remember that his one great claim to having done anything at all for the Highlands is that his Government set up the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Well, like other hon. Members, I have met the Chairman of that Board since the tax was announced, and we know the views of the Deputy-Chairman. He has not retracted what he said, but the Secretary of State has consistently refused to announce what is the view of the Chair-

man. I cannot speak for him, but the Secretary of State could. The fact is that he will not, although it is the sort of problem—

Mr. Bob Brown: Am I to understand, Mr. Speaker, that we are debating Amendment No. 3 together with Amendment No. 6? If so, may I ask when the right hon. Gentleman is going to talk about the Amendments?

Mr. Speaker: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's question is that he is right. We are discussing those two Amendments together. So far as his second point is concerned, I will correct the right hon. Gentleman when he is out of order.

Mr. Noble: It is undoubtedly true that there are hon. Members opposite—the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and several hon. Members on the Liberal benches who have constituencies in these parts of the world. They are not normally totally silent, and they cannot say they have not had one single letter from constituents. They should have said something, however shortly, in defence of the Highlands and Islands.
We in the Highlands do not all have perhaps exactly the same appreciation of the urgency of time. The Leader of the House has indicated that he is very much against our using a few days of the Recess to debate the Bill as it should be debated. I can, perhaps, understand that, because during the Whitsun Recess, when we had quite a number of days, although there was a shipping strike, a matter which was of the greatest importance to the Scottish Highlands and Islands—and an Amendment has been put down to Clause 2 by which we seek to give them some temporary relief to make up for the hardships they suffered —not one Scottish Minister could find time to visit one of the Islands. We understand, therefore—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must return to the Amendment.

Mr. Noble: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I thought that I was relating my remarks directly to the question of


time in recess and how we should use it. We are quite prepared to spend two or three days of the Recess discussing the Bill, although we appreciate that even when conditions of great hardship are being suffered Scottish Ministers are not prepared to give up time in the Recess to go and see the people who are suffering.
I must not weary the House too long —  [Interruption.] I am delighted to receive so much support for continuing, but I appreciate that many other important things should be discussed during this debate. There is not one Scottish Member of the House, on either side, who has in his heart a single word of praise for the Bill. Many Scottish Members opposite might support it in the Lobby, but there is not one person in Scotland who does not know that the Bill is against the interests of Scotland.
The matter goes wider than that, however, and in my last few minutes I should like to say a word or two about the other areas which suffer a good deal from the problems which have, perhaps, struck Scotland harder than any other area over the last—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not drift into discussing the Bill. We are discussing the Amendments to the Motion.

Mr. Noble: I apologise profusely, Mr. Speaker, but it is difficult to finish every sentence by saying, "and this is why we need more time." That is what I am trying to put to the House. I have tried at intervals, every two or three minutes, to explain that, but if I do it in every sentence it prolongs my speech, which is the last thing I want to do.
The payroll tax was an idea which, I do not say originated, but at least was brought to the forefront by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) a few years ago.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is now not even remotely in order. He must relate his remarks to the timetable.

Mr. Noble: If we are to discuss the problems of the time that may be available for discussing Scotland, regional

policy and other things, surely, Mr. Speaker, it is almost impossible for an hon. Member, on either side, to refer to the problems that he wants to discuss without mentioning the problems.

Mr. Speaker: It may be difficult, or even almost impossible, but almost every other hon. Member who has spoken has succeeded. The right hon. Gentleman must therefore try.

Mr. Noble: I must accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, even if, perhaps, I have been unluckier than you have been in some of the speeches to which I have listened. The point I seek to make is that whilst we do not in any way disagree with some policy of this sort, whether it is called a payroll tax or Selective Employment Tax, or what—and looking at the problems that my right hon. and hon. Friends will want to make in regard to Wales, the North-West or the North-East—whatever else the Government are trying to achieve by this proposed tax, what they have failed to do is to relate it in any way to the regional policy—

Mr. Speaker: That, again, may be true, but this is not the moment to argue it. We are discussing the allocation of time Motion.

Mr. Noble: We must have time[Interruption.]—to discuss problems, and it is impossible to do so unless we are allowed to mention them without in each case saying we must have time to discuss the Selective Employment Tax. I am doing my best to keep within the bounds of order.
I found it interesting to note that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) made an interesting, amusing, destructive, rather irrelevant, speech, but not one word did he say about Wales or the problems of Wales, or how the Selective Employment Payments Bill would affect the problems from which Wales used to suffer just as acutely as did Scotland. The people of Wales have been a little luckier in the last 15 years than we have in Scotland—

Mr. Speaker: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman now to come to order. We cannot discuss, on the allocation of time Motion, or on the Amendment to which he is speaking, the merits of the problems which he is seeking more time to raise.

Mr. Noble: I am not trying to discuss the merits, Mr. Speaker. I am seeking to discuss the problems which hon. Members, trying honestly to represent their constituencies and areas, ought to put to the Government with regard to the Bill. It is important for hon. Members to bring up the particular problems that affect those areas and the whole of the regional policy which this Government believe they support but which in the Selective Employment Payments Bill they appear, at least to those of us who come from those areas, totally to have deserted.
If that is so, I believe that the House needs r-ore time for debate. This is shown quite clearly by every Amendment that has been tabled in respect of every region. My hon. Friends from Wales, just as my hon. Friends from Scotland, are trying to bring forward Amendments to help their own regions. It is easy. perhaps, for these two specific regions to bring forward specific Amendments, because Scotland is a nation, and so is Wales. One appreciates that it is rather more difficult for my hon. Friends from the South-West, the North-East or the North-West to put down Amendments as clearly related to their regional problems, but their problems are none the less acute and important for that reason.
I do not believe that in the whole House more than a handful of hon. Members approve of this timetable Motion which the Leader of the House is trying

to force upon us. I can understand the odd hon. Member who wants to go home early at 11.30 every night rather than to discuss the problems of his constituency, but this is not the wish of the House. As it is not the wish of the House, our Amendment for this extra time should be accepted by the Leader of the House. It would be a disgrace if he refused it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Silkin) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put :-

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridley (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your absence at half-past eleven the Closure was suggested by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) to your predecessor. Is it not a fact that the Closure cannot be moved again once it has been suggested until two hours have elapsed?

Mr. Speaker: The answer to the hon. Member is that he is not correct.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. George Wigg): The hon. Member is talking through his hat.

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 224.

Division No. 122.]
AYES
[1.6 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Boyden, James
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Albu, Austen
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bradley, Tom
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Alldiritt, Walter
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Allen, Scholefield
Brooks, Edwin
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey


Archer, Peter
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Delargy, Hugh


Armstrong, Ernest
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon Tyne,W)
Dell, Edmund


Ashley, Jack
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dewar, Donald


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Buchan, Norman
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Dickens, James


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dobson, Ray


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Doig, Peter


Barnes, Michael
Cant, R. B.
Driberg, Tom


Barnett, Joel
Carmichael, Neil
Dunn, dames A.


Baxter, William Beaney, Alan
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Durdnett, Jack


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)


Bence, Cyril
Chapman, Donald
Eadie, Alex


Bonn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Coe, Denis
Edelman, Maurice


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Coleman, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bidwell, Sydney
Concannon, J. D.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Binns, John
Conlan, Bernard
Ellis, John


Bishop, E. S.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
English, Michael


Blackburn, F.
Crawshaw, Richard
Ennals, David


Boardman, H.
Cronin, John
Ensor, David


Booth, Albeit
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Boston, Terence
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Dalyell, Tam
Fernyhough, E.


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Finch, Harold



Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)





Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Lomas, Kenneth
Richard, Ivor


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Luard, Evan
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Floud, Bernard
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McBride, Neil
Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)


Ford, Ben
McCann, John
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Forrester, John
MacColl, James
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Fowler, Gerry
MacDermot, Niall
Roebuck, Roy


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
McGuire, Michael
Rogers, George


Freeson, Reginald
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rose, Paul


Galpem, Sir Myer
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Gardner, A. J.
Mackie, John
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Garrett, W. E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Rowland, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Darrow, Alex
Maclennan, Robert
Ryan, John


Ginsburg, David
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Sheldon, Robert


Gourlay, Harry
MacPherson, Malcolm
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Gregory, Arnold
Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigs)
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton,N.E.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mapp, Charles
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Marquand, David
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Skeffington, Arthur


Hamling, William
Mason, Roy
Slater, Joseph


Hannan, William
Maxwell, Robert
Small, William


Harper, Joseph
Mayhew, Christopher
Snow, Julian


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mellish, Robert
Steele, Thomas (Dunhartonshire, W.)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mikardo, Ian
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Hattersley, Roy
Milian, Bruce
Stonehouse, John


Hazell, Bert
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hefter, Eric S.
Molloy, William
Swain, Thomas


Henig, Stanley
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Swingler, Stephen


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Symonds, J. B.


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Taverne, Dick


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hooley, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Homer, John
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thornton, Ernest


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Murray, Albert
Tinn, James


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Neal, Harold
Tomney, Frank


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Newens, Stan
Tuck, Raphael


Howie, W.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Urwin, T. W.


Hoy, James
Norwood, Christopher
Varley, Eric G.


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Oakes, Gordon
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ogden, Eric
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
O'Malley, Brian
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hunter, Adam
Orbach, Maurice
Wallace, George


Hynd, John
Orme, Stanley
Watkins, David (Consett)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Oswald, Thomas
Wellbeloved, James


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Whitaker, Ben


Jeger, George (Goole)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Paget, R. T.
Whitlock, William


Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Palmer, Arthur
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Park, Trevor
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Kelley, Richard
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Kenyon, Clifford
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Winnick, David


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Winterhottom, R. E.


Leadbitter, Ted
Price, Thomas (WesthOughton)
Woof, Robert


Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Price, William (Rugby)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Probert, Arthur
Yates, Victor


Lee, John (Reading)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Zilliacus, K.


Lestor, Miss Joan
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Redhead, Edward
Mr. Charles Grey and


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rees, Merlyn
Mr. George Lawson


Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Reynolds, G. W.



Lipton, Marcus
Rhodes, Geoffrey





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Batsford, Brian
Black, Sir Cyril


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Body, Richard


Astor, John
Bell, Ronald
Bossom, Sir Clive


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John


Awdry, Daniel
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward


Baker, W. H. K.
Berry, Hn. Anthony
Braine, Bernard


Balniel, Lord
Biffen, John
Brewis, John


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Brinton, Sir Talton







Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Bruce-Gardynei J.
Hawkins, Paul
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Bryan, Paul Buchanan-Smith,Atick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hay, John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bullus, Sir Erie
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Campbell, Cordon
Higgins, Terence L.
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Carlisle, Mark
Hiley, Joseph
Peel, John


Carr, Rt. Fin. Robert
Hill, J. E. B.
Percival, Ian


Cary, Sir Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Peyton, John


Channon,H. P. G.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pink, R. Bonner


Clark, Henry
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Rafton


Ciegg, Walter
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, Richard
Prior, J. M. L.


Cordle, John
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pym, Francis


Corfield, F. V.
Hunt, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Costain, A. P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Craddock, Sir Berestord (Spelthorne)
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Crawley, Aldan
Irvine, Bryant GOdman (Rye)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Crowder, F. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cunningharr, Sir Knox
Jopling, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dalkeith, Earl of
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dance, James
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
St. John-Stevas, Norman


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kershaw, Anthony
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kitson, Timothy
Sharpies, Richard


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lambton, Viscount
Smith, John


Douglas-Horie, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lancaster, Col, C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Drayson, G. B.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stodart, Anthony


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Stoddart.Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Eden, Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(sut'nc'dfield)
Talbot, John E.


Elliot, R.W.(N'c'stle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Tapsell, Peter


Errington, Sir Eric
Loveys, W. H.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Eyre, Reginald
Lubbock, Eric
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Farr, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Fisher, Nigel
MacArthur, Ian
Teeling, Sir William


Fietcher-Cooke, Charles
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Temple, John M.


Forrest, George
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Fortescue, Tim
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Tilney, John


Foster, Sir John
McMaster, Stanley
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maddan, Martin
Vickers, Dame Joan


Gilmour, SP John (Fife, E.)
Maginnis, John E.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Clover, Sir Douglas
Marten, Neil
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maude, Angus
Wall, Patrick


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Walters, Dennis


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Ward, Dame Irene


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Weatherill, Bernard


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Webster, David


Grant-Ferris, R.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Miscamphell, Norman
Whitelaw, William


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gurden, Harold
Monro, Hector
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
More, Jasper
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, W. C. (Denbigh)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Woodnutt, Mark


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Worsley, Marcus


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wylie, N. R.


Harrison, Brian (Malden)
Murton, Oscar
Younger, Hn. George


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Neave, Airey
Mr. Peter Blaker and


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Anthony Grant.



Nott, John

Question put accordingly, That "three" stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 225.

Division No. 123.]
AYES
[1.18 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Armstrong, Ernest
Barnett, Joel


Albu, Austell
Ashley, Jack
Baxter, William


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Beaney, Alan


Alldritt, Walter
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.


Allen, Scholefield
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Bence, Cyril


Anderson, Donald
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood


Archer, Peter
Barnes, Michael
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)







Bidwell, Sydney
Gourlay, Harry
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Binns, John
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Bishop, E. S.
Gregory, Arnold
Molloy, William


Blackburn, F.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Booth, Albert
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Boston, Terence
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hamling, William
Moyle, Roland


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Hannan, William
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Boyden, James
Harper, Joseph
Murray, Albert


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Neal, Harold


Bradley, Tom
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Newens, Stan


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hattersley, Roy
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Brooks, Edwin
Hazen, Bert
Norwood, Christopher


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hefter, Eric S.
Oakes, Gordon


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Henig, Stanley
Ogden, Eric


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
O'Malley, Brian


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hilton, W. S.
Orbach, Maurice


Buchan, Norman
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Orme, Stanley


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hooley, Frank
Oswald, Thomas


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Homer, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Cant, R. B.
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Carmichael, Neil
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Paget, R. T.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Howie, W.
Palmer, Arthur


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hoy, James
Park, Trevor


Chapman, Donald
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Parkin, Ben (Paddington, N.)


Coe, Denis
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Concannon, J. D.
Hunter, Adam
Pentland, Norman


Conlan, Bernard
Hynd, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, 8.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jackson, Coin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Cronin, John
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jeger, George (Goole)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Probert, Arthur


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Johnson, James (Kiston-on-Hull, W.)
Rankin, John


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Redhead, Edward


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kelley, Richard
Reynolds, G. W.


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kenyon, Clifford
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (niter &amp; Chatham)
Richard, Ivor


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Delargy, Hugh
Kerr, Russell (Fe:thaM)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Dell, Edmund
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'cras)


Dickens, James
Lee, John (Reading)
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dobson, Ray
Lector, Miss Joan
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Doig, Peter
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Roebuck, Roy


Driberg, Tom
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rogers, George


Dunn, James A.
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rose, Paul


Dunnett, Jack
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Eadie, Alex
Loughlin, Charles
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Edelman, Maurice
Luard, Evan
Ryan, John


Edwards, Roberts (Bileton)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sheldon, Robert


Ellis, John
McBride, Neil
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


English, Michael
McCann, John
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Ennals, David
MacColl, James
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Ensor, David
MacDermot, Niall
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fernyhough, E.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Skeffington, Arthur


Finch, Harold
Mackie, John
Slater, Joseph


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.
Small, William


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mac'ennan, Robert
Snow, Julian


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Torn (Glasgow, C.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunhartonshire, W.)


Floud, Bernard
McNamara, J. Kevin
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Stonehouse, John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Forrester, John
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Swain, Thomas


Fowler, Gerry
Mapp, Charles
Swingler, Stephen


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Marquand, David
Symonds, J. B.


Freeson, Reginald
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Taverne, Dick


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mason, Roy
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Gardner, A. J.
Maxwell, Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Garrett, W. E.
Mayhew, Christopher
Thornton, Ernest


Garrow, Alex
Mellish, Robert
Tinn, James


Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian
Tomney, Frank


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Milian, Bruce
Tuck, Raphael







Urwin, T. W.
White, Mrs. Eirene
Winnick, David


Varley, Er c G.
Whitlock, William
Winterbottom, R. E.


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George
Woof, Robert


Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Wyatt, Woodrow


Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Yates, Victor


Wallace, ,George
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Zilliacus, K.


Watkins, David (Consett)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wellbeloved, James
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mr. Charles Grey and


Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. George Lawson.


Whitaker, Ben
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neii


Allason, Janes (Hemel Hempstead)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maude, Angus


Astor, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Mawby, Ray


Awdry, Daniel
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Baker, W. H. K.
Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Balniel, Lord
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gower, Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman


Batstord, Brian
Grant, Anthony
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Grant-Ferris, R.
Monro, Hector


Bell, Ronald
Gresham Cooke, R.
More, Jasper


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Gorden, Harold
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Bitten, Joke
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Murton, Oscar


Black, Sir Cyril
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Blaker, Peter
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Neave, Airey


Body, Richard
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Nott, John


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Onslow, Cranley


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Braine, Bernard
Hastings, Stephen
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Brewis, John
Hawkins, Paul
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Brinton, Sir, Tatton
Hay, John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bryan, Paul
Heseltlne, Michael
Peel, John


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Higgins, Terence L.
Percival, Ian


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hiley, Joseph
Peyton, John


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, J. E. B.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Burden, F. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pink, R. Bonner


Campbell, Gordon
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pounder, Rafton


Carlisle, Mark
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Holland, Philip
Prior, J. M. L.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hordern, Peter
Pym, Francis


Channon, H. P. G.
Homby, Richard
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Clark, Henry
Hunt, John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Cooke, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cordle, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ridsdale, Julian


Corfield, F. V.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rodgers, Slr John (SevenOaks)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Jopling, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (HOrnsey)


Crawley, Aidan
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Sandys, Rt Hn. D.


Crowder, F. P.
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Scott, Nicholas


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kershaw, Anthony
Sharpies, Richard


Dalkeith, Earl of
King, Evelyn (Dorset, 8.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dance, James
Kitson, Timothy
Smith, John


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stainton, Keith


d'Avigdor-Coldsmld, Sir Henry
LambtOn, Viscount
Stodart, Anthony


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lancaster, Col. G. C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Summers, Sir Spencer


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Talbot, John E.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Tapsell, Peter


Douglas-Horne, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lloyd,RtHn.Geoffrey(SuFnC'dfield)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Drayson, G. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


du Cann, RI. Hn. Edward
Loveys, W. H.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Eden, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric
Feeling, Sir William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Temple, John M.


Errington, Sir Eric
MacArthur, Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Eyre, Reginald
Mackeneie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Tilney, John


Farr, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Fisher, Nigel
Mac'eod, Rt. Hn. Iain
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McMaster, Stanley
Vickers, Dame Joan


Forrest, George
Macmilian, Maurice (Farnham)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Foster, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Wall, Patrick


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Walters, Dennis



Ward, Dame Irene








Weatherill, Bernard
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Wylie, N. R.


Webster, David
Woirige-Gordon, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Whitelaw, William
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. George Younger.


Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Worsley, Marcus

1.30 a.m.

Miss Mervyn Pike: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in line 17, to leave out "11.30" and to insert: "3.30 a.m."
This is an Amendment which I think will meet with the approval of the House and I move it with a certain degree of optimism. All we are asking for is four extra hours at the conclusion of the third day, which would take us to about 3.30 a.m. to discuss some very important subjects. We ask for this extra time to discuss 17 new Clauses, dealing with 16 separate categories of people and of need, and 12 Amendments to the Schedule, all of which also deal with separate and very important points.
Under the time allotted by the Government, the three-hour debate would mean six minutes of debate on each separate point. I do not wish to go over the arguments already put with such force and cogency by other hon. Members but all will recognise that six minutes is a ridiculous length of time to give to these important new considerations. Even if we have the extra four hours for which we ask, we shall only have a 15-minute debate for each point.
It is important, in discussion of these new Clauses and the Amendments to the Schedule, that the Ministers responsible should explain to the House their reasons for not being able to accept the arguments put on both sides. It may well be that we have had some small opportunity to debate some of these matters on the Finance Bill but we have had no opportunity to hear reasoned arguments from Ministers as to why Amendments should not be made. In each case we have merely been told that the Government could not accept the Amendment but have been given no detailed argument as to why.
There is the important consideration that not only should time be given to hon. Members on both sides to deploy their case but that Ministers responsible should listen to the debate and the spirit of the House so that they can put forward that point of view when discussing these matters with their colleagues. Those

of us who have been here for any length of time know that it is not only the time of the debate nor the words spoken that are necessarily the most important but the quality of the debate and the mood and feeling of the House.
The new Clauses in the main seek to safeguard the interests of those most in need of protection—the weak, the disabled, the elderly, the retired and others in most walks of life who are most in need of the protection of the House. These are people which have no great pressure groups and no unions to speak for them but only their individual Members of Parliament.
Unlike the co-operatives, these people cannot be sure that hon. Members opposite will break their stony silence on their behalf or that their Members will represent their interests. They do not represent any great block of votes and they have no powerful influence in the ballot box. These are the people we are here to represent and it is for this reason that we must insist that we have more than this derisory six minutes on each of these points.
If democracy means anything, it means that this House will recognise their case and examine their need with sincerity and compassion and that the Ministers responsible will listen to the debates, even if they are not always able to answer them. One of the things we complain about most is that, in the very short period in which we have had the opportunity to debate the problems of the disabled and the handicapped, we have not been certain that the Ministers responsible have been able to take away the mood of the House. When things are difficult, as they are now, it is much more important that we attach much more weight to the needs of these weak people. One of the great difficulties is the anxiety felt by these people. Already they are living on the margin of their resources, already their lives are at risk. They are less able to look after themselves, and now they read in the newspapers and hear on the wireless that an economic blizzard is blowing up. How much greater is their anxiety when they find


that their particular circumstances are not being discussed here? We know that hon. Members opposite are often empty-headed but we did not know that they had such stony hearts in disallowing debate on this subject.
The first new Clause in this group deals with people on fixed incomes, who are the worst hit by the dangers and cruelties of inflation. It deals also with those who are retired and who are now living at a tremendous disadvantage, the old-age pensioners. Surely we can afford to spend more than six minutes, or even 15 minutes, because I believe that this new Clause will be accepted, in explaining to them why it will not be possible for then to obtain relief from this tax? These people want to remain in the mainstream of life, even though they are becoming senior citizens.
We should have more time too, to discuss the second new Clause. We hear a lot about the Mrs. Mopps and office cleaners. I was born and brought up in Yorkshire, where we have a saying, "Where there's muck, there's money." We do not want too much muck in our offices because we believe that efficiency comes from having healthy places in which to work. Some of my hon. Friends may have worked out how many seconds and words have been given to each category—certainly insufficient time has been given to them.
New Clause No. 3, dealing with part-time workers, is the most important in this group. It is said that we have discussed them in previous debates, but there are many more questions that we should like the Minister to answer. Do we know what proportion of the labour force they represent; what contribution they make to the efficiency of the nation and the labour force; what contribution do they make to the efficiency of the service industries, where they are mainly employed? We must have answers to these questions and I do not think that they can be given in six minutes.
What surveys have been made before the introduction of this savage and punitive tax:' What sort of people are these part-time workers? Mainly they are widows, going back to work to earn money to keep their home going, trying to give extra opportunities to their families and having to bear a great burden

as a result of their widowhood. They are also wives with sick or disabled husbands. They have the added financial burden of sickness and disablement in the home. My own daily woman, for example, works for a few hours each week to add to the comforts of her home.
Those who have retired and wish to return to employment represent a most important category. If we are to push up productivity we must make the fullest possible use of all these people, and we should have more than the 15 minutes for which I ask to deal with this category. Hon. Members opposite seem amused. In this debate many of them have been part-time workers, but they get full-time pay. It may well be that the Chair will decide to group some of these Amendments dealing with the blind, the disabled, the deaf and the mentally handicapped, but even so we ought to have more than the meagre time allotted.
We have been pressing the Government for weeks but we still do not know how many disabled people will be affected by the tax. What new training schemes have the Government for the re-employment of these people? If they lose employment in one type of work—for which they have been trained and in which they are efficient—they are not easily retrained. If they lose their employment because of this Bill or because of the Finance Bill or because of other Measures which will be announced this week, what are their chances of being retrained? Hon. Members opposite do not seem in the slightest interested. I hope that those who find this so amusing will tell their constituents this weekend how amusing it was that the House could not afford extra time for these great problems.
I say that we should be given time for the answers to some of these important questions, if we are to judge how this tax will affect these people. How can we protect them against rising costs when their jobs are at risk? What other employment shall we offer them? In another context, on the Finance Bill, we had a cursory answer from the Financial Secretary; he said that the blind represented only a small category and therefore it did not matter if we did nothing for them. But in the House we have always made special provision for the


blind, having special registers for them and making them special allowances, and it is not too much to ask for some special time on the Bill to consider their needs and circumstances. What about the deaf and dumb workers?
We had a speech about them by the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) on 29th June. Since then all has been deafness and dumbness on those benches opposite. How many of these people are there who will be affected? What extra cost to National Assistance funds will there be when these people are put at risk in their jobs and are unable to get new jobs? What will be the cost of retraining them? What conditions for retraining will there be? Have the Government thought of any of these things with their ill-thought-out and hurriedly concocted Bill?
To come to other important considerations included in this Amendment, what about new Clause No. 6 which refers to the reduction in costs of the Civil Service? Surely we are entitled to ask how the Government are going to set about the task of taking their own medicine? How will they make Government Departments more efficient and more streamlined? What are the numbers they envisage will be affected? Again I would ask, what special retraining schemes have they for civil servants when they return them to productive industry?
There is a Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance Press notice which came out on 15th July and which, headed "Selective Employment Tax", says:
New central office in Scotland. A new Government central office employing about 300 people in the proposed new Ministry of Social Security is to be set up in the new town of "—
I always find these Scottish names difficult to pronounce—
Cumbernauld in Dunbartonshire in September to deal with refunds of Selective Employment Tax in respect of domestic and nursing assistants.
It goes on to say that many people will be recruited locally and they will be dealing with claims for refunds of tax and all the rest of it. In view of this, how do the Government square with their requirement that the nation as a whole should shake out surplus labour their new office in which they are putting 300

extra people to implement this tax? Surely we should have more time to discuss this.
I am sorry that this is becoming a refrain—that surely we should have more time; but really the House must face the difficulties which this timetable Motion places upon it and the restrictions it imposes on our debates.
In new Clause No. 8 we talk about payment of interest. This is something which surely is most relevant to the small man who has no big pressure group and no big organisation to help him to bring pressure on the Government or even help him in the situation of overdraft difficulties we shall all find ourselves in in a few days' or may be a few hours' time. How many small men will be put out of business because of this added burden? It will be hard enough on those people in all conscience in the weeks and months ahead, and these are, on the whole, the people who give dynamism to the economy, people with the bright ideas, who start up with one or two employees in a small workshop. These are the men who in the past have led British industry forward, and, whether in industry or services, have been of advantage to the economy as a whole, and have played a very important part. How shall we help them? Have the Government any plans for that? Have they given any thought to that? Will the Government give any answer to any of these things?
I think that one of the most tragic categories is the category mentioned in new Clause 10, the mentally handicapped. We know these are likely to be placed at greater risk than anybody else.
What about new Clause No. 12, which is not one from this side, about refunds to certain societies? The House should know what societies these hon. Members have in mind when they put forward new Clauses. How many of these new societies are there? What are they? Are they societies like the General Nursing Council for England and Wales, for example? Many hon. Members have had the Council's circular, in which it says:
The Members of the General Nursing Council for England and Wales consider that the imposition of Selective Employment Tax upon the Council can only be interpreted as an indication of the Government's lack of true appreciation of the services rendered to the country by the nursing profession, since the burden will fall upon nurses either under


training or at the completion thereof. The Council has therefore authorised its officers to take the most vigorous action possible"—[Interruption.]
Hon. Members opposite may not be interested in the profession, but hon. Members on this side have sought every possible opportunity to stress the importance of its case, while other hon. Members have kept quiet or jeered and made it difficult for the arguments to be put over.
Are we talking about societies like the General Nursing Council? Are we talking about societies like the Post Office Sanatorium Society? Having been a Post Office Minister, I have a very warm spot for any Post Office charity. When I was a Post Office Minister, I went to many of its homes and saw the wonderful work that it is doing. I want to raise my voice on its behalf. Do such people come into the new Clause?

Mr. James Dance: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Gentlemen opposite to interrupt, and show their complete lack of interest in this very important subject, from a sedentary position?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will listen to the hon. Lady.

Mr. Thomas Steele: Is it in order for the hon. Lady to read a Central Office brief?

Miss Pike: I am sorry, but the circular concerning the Post Office Sanatorium Society happens to have come from the Head Post Office, Bridgnorth, in Shropshire, which I have never thought of as being the Central Office, but one never knows. The circular dealing with the nursing profession came from the General Nursing Council of England and Wales. It is not Central Office literature. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I do not think that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire. West (Mr. Steele) wants to admit that he, too, has received these circulars but has not thought it worth while to bring forward these arguments in debate. It may be that the hon. Gentleman has not read them and that they have gone straight into the wastepaper basket. It would have rewarded him to read some of them.
The Post Office Sanatorium Society's circular goes on to explain the position:
Independent hospitals do employ many people in the service of the sick. They naturally employ no more nurses and doctors and auxiliary staffs than are necessary for the treatment and care of patients Every bed the Independent Hospitals provide, every patient treated, means that much less expenditure in the National Health Service field. Every ill person made well means more people in employment, self-supporting, making less demands on the State's Welfare Service.…The cost per patient week compare favourably with that spent in the leading National Health Service Hospitals. The amount spent by the Society represented a saving to the tax payer.
It points out, too, that the cost of the tax to the society will be about £ 12,500 a year.
It would have done the hon. Gentleman good to have read some of these things to find out what the problems are.

Mr. Steele: The hon. Lady is arguing that we do not have enough time to consider these things. We have been considering them in the House for the last six weeks.

Miss Pike: If I missed one of the speeches by the hon. Gentleman, I apologise to him, and if I have missed any of the answers—

Mr. Steele: The hon. Gentleman has been in the Chair, trying to keep other hon. Members in order.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: Is the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) aware that, if we have been discussing these matters for the past six weeks, I have not been able yet to catch the Speaker's eye?

Miss Pike: I promised myself that I would try to keep within order, so I shall move on to two more examples of what may be covered by this new Clause. One is the Norfolk and Suffolk Hospital Contributory Association which was formed in 1919 to administer a contributory scheme for the benefit of the local voluntary hospitals. It is a non-profit-making organisation, and since the advent of the National Health Service in 1948 has existed to promote the mutual benefit of its members in all possible ways. I could go on reciting what it does, but the point is that the total grant paid since 1948 amounts to more than £ 1 million, and its additional charity grants amount to more than £ 60,000. This again is


something that is being put at risk by this tax.
Surely those who wish to represent the interests of hospitals, nursing homes, homes for the elderly, homes for the handicapped, nursing associations, physiotherapy services, and all the many other services which do so much not only to care for people, but to train people in the profession, should have time to discuss some of these problems. But time goes on, and we cannot do it.
Hon. Members must not laugh too much about this, but I am particularly interested in the problem of the aged spinster. This is a very serious matter, and this again is particularly relevant to the discussion. Without families to look after them, and without all the help of the Welfare State, these are the people who will be very much at risk as they get older. They have homes to look after. They have their particular difficulties of managing for themselves. On the whole, they are part-time workers, and we must seek to help them.
They are not a very glamorous group of people. They are not a very vocal pressure group. They do not mean many votes to hon. Gentlemen. They probably waste the time of hon. Gentlemen when they go to their "surgeries", and no doubt hon. Gentlemen get rid of them as quickly as possible. But surely we should from time to time consider their problems to see how we can help them.
Is it still the Government's policy, as it was on 27th April of this year, to try to get older workers back into employment? This again is not a Central Office brief. It is a Ministry of Labour Press notice which came out on 27th April urging firms to make special arrangements for the continued employment of older people, to make some simple modifications that are so often necessary to adapt working conditions. Is it still the Government's policy to urge industry to do this? These are the things that we want to know.
I propose now to deal with the other part of the Amendment, because it does not ask for more time to deal only with the new Clauses, important though they are. What about the Amendments to the Schedules? Have hon. Gentlemen opposite looked at any of these Amendments? Do they think—maybe they do

—that in Amendment No. 122 we can dispose of the Bank of England in six minutes flat? I agree that hon. Gentlemen opposite are doing it pretty rapidly, but surely even they will agree that this should be the subject of a separate debate and a separate answer?
Amendment No. 123 is concerned with the Highlands and Islands Development Board. Luckily, I have never served on the Scottish Grand Committee, and I hope that I never shall. But, before even getting to the subject of the Amendment, it would take hon. Members of that Committee six minutes to read it.
I admit to having a special interest in the B.B.C., being a former Post Office Minister. Amendment No. 211 covers the B.B.C. I do not know whether the Corporation has got over that trouble with the Prime Minister during the General Election. There are many questions one could ask about the B.B.C. For example, since we have all read articles about the great pool of productive labour in the Corporation, what steps is the B.B.C. taking to slim itself, so to speak? Surely we need time, even a quarter of an hour, to discuss this matter.
Most important of the Amendments to Schedule 1 are those relating to the nationalised industries. They are designed to ensure that those industries do not have an unfair advantage over other retailing departments. I understand that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not want us to discuss these Amendments because they are designed to remove discrimination against private enterprise. That is why Amendment No. 124 refers to
Premises occupied by retail branches of contracting departments of Electricity and Gas Boards".
How many hon. Members have small electrical contractors and retailers in their constituencies who have been complaining about the unfair competition which already exists? Under the S.E.P. Bill as it stands the nationalised industries, with the exception of excepted parts and departments, are claiming the refund. The Amendments on this issue are designed to place the nationalised industries in exactly the same position over S.E.T. as other retailers and contractors—to allow for even the present discrimination, without making matters worse.
Amendment No. 288 seeks to omit Schedule 1 entirely. I can deal with that


in a second and say, "That should be done". However, it would take longer to deal with Amendment No. 195, covering the. Fisheries Organisation Society, Amendment No. 196, the Crofters Commission, and Amendment No. 197, the White Fish Authority. In this connection, this is also Amendment No. 198 covering the Herring Industry Board and Amendment No. 261 referring to the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society.
One of my hon. Friends has already referred to the "kipper" we have in charge of the Government. Surely the Herring Industry Board is entitled to be discussed by us. Bearing these important matters in mind, I have gone through these Amendments to show, without wearying the House, why we need extra time—an extra four hours, that is all—to debate these issues. We are asking for this additional time to be allotted on the third day of the Bill's progress. We have heard how hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to go on their holidays and do not want to sit for an extra week to debate these important subjects. How can they lay on the beach knowing that they have hurried away without providing Parliament with a little time in which to debate these issues? If the Government wish to allow their supporters peace of mind on their holidays and restful sleep during the Recess, they must agree to provide extra time.
It is not only that we shall not have much time for discussing these Amendments on this Bill, but also that we did not have the time necessary on the Finance Bill to make reasonable provision for these people. Had it been that we could on the Finance Bill give greater protection and greater help by way of some of our Amendments, we should have done something to alleviate the position. We tabled six Amendments for the purpose of helping this very category in the Finance Bill—one, for example, giving tax relief to disabled persons by way of an allowance of £ 150 in particularly difficult cases. We had a new Clause for increasing from £ 40 to £ 75 the relief which could be claimed by those who, because of old age or infirmity, had the services of a daughter. We sought to assist the single woman who claimed old age relief—[An HON. MEMBER: "How much did the Tories give to the

Surtax payers?"] I do not think many of the old spinsters about whom I am speaking are Surtax payers.

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. My point, quite seriously, is whether it is in order during this debate for the hon. Lady to discuss what happened when we discussed the Finance Bill. That is what the hon. Lady is doing at the moment and with respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I submit that it is not in Order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the House is always pretty indulgent to an Opposition when the discussion is on a guillotine Motion. But the hon. Lady has been going on for some considerable time and I hope that she may be able shortly to bring her remarks to a conclusion.

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North): Is it in order for the hon. Lady to drag into this debate the Scottish Grand Committee, the White Fish Authority, the Herring Industry Board and several subjects which have nothing at all to do with the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I have said, my experience is that the House always gives considerable latitude to an Opposition protesting against the imposition of a guillotine Motion. At the same time, I have allowed the hon. Lady a considerable measure of indulgence and I hope that she will soon bring her remarks to a conclusion.

Miss Pike: I apologise if I have strayed from the rules of order, but I hope it will be realised how difficult it is to keep within the defined rules on a Motion of this kind. I am trying to make the point that it is of the greatest importance for the House to have time on this Bill because we had insufficient time on the Finance Bill. I submit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that that argument is germane to the whole burden of the case we are making, and if hon. Members opposite will take the trouble to look at the Amendments we propose, they will see that they are concerned with the matters about which I have been speaking.
By having six minutes for each of these extremely important subjects we are curtailing discussion. I will go no further, because I have made my point. We have


had many short discussions in recent weeks on these topics; small discussions, but then this is a mini-minded Government, but we certainly have plenty of multi-muddle as a result.
We on this. side have shown great restraint in arguing our points. All our arguments, particularly on the social service Amendments and new Clauses to which we have been able to speak, have been carefully reasoned. I have been extraordinarily brief in those debates because I have been anxious that as many hon. Members as possible should be able to put their arguments. We have tried to help. It has been a Finance Bill which has done nothing to help these people. We now have a Selective Employment Tax which positively will penalise them, and we should have longer time to discuss it.

2.11 a.m.

Mr. Julian Ridsdale: I am very glad, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you have given me this opportunity at last of speaking about this important subject. It is disgraceful that we are to be allowed only six minutes to discuss each of the new Clauses. It is most undemocratic. I cannot understand why a Government who purport to have the interest of the old-age pensioner, part-time workers and particularly small business men and small shopkeepers at heart should allow only six minutes to discuss some of the important new Clauses which we on this side have tabled.
When I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) speaking, I could not help but wish to put some points which I wished to raise, particularly as they concern the position of old-age pensioners, the weak, part-time workers and the over-60s, those who are least able to look after themselves. I speak from a great deal of experience, because I have a constituency in North-East Essex which has over 25 per cent. retired people. It concerns me that we are not having adequate time to put the position of these people and how badly they are being affected by this kind of tax.
Do the Government realise that they are forcing some of the hoteliers in the seaside areas, who rely on part-time workers and on old-age pensioners to

keep their hotels going, to close down at a time when they should be encouraging people to spend their holidays at home and not spend expensive and scarce foreign exchange resources abroad? Yet we are not to be given adequate time to expand our case and our argument to put this point of view to the Government.
I assure the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is to reply to this debate, that I have been told that a number of small shops and small hotels will be forced to close down. I should like to expand this argument a great deal more, but I cannot do it because adequate time is not to be allowed for us to put the case.
I know that a lot of my hon. Friends want to speak in this debate, and I do not want to go on for long, but it is important that we should make it possible for those who want to help themselves to do so. I have been amazed at the hard-hearted attitude of the Government and that it is not possible to hear any hon. Member on the benches opposite speaking on behalf of the small shopkeepers, small hoteliers and people on small fixed incomes who wish to help themselves or asking for time in which to do so to enable us to make an adequate case to the Government in these important matters.
It is for this reason that I welcome these few minutes in which to put the case of some of these people who will be so badly affected by this tax. Is the time when severer economic measures are about to be brought in the time for bringing in this kind of tax as well? The Government may now have second thoughts about the tax, having in mind the economic measures to be announced tomorrow. But we are not to be given time to discuss all these points adequately. This will be most disturbing to my constituents—to the many people who rely on part-time work. At a time when unemployment will increase and when it will be more difficult for them to get the work they seek, the Government are to tax those who would be able to offer them employment and so help them to supplement their incomes. Are we to find that the cost of the National Assistance will go up?
All these are matters that we should like to discuss much more fully. The


principle should be that we should seek to help those who want to help themselves. We should help the over-sixties and the: old-age pensioners. Instead, the Government by this tax are preventing that from being done. It is because I feel so strongly about these things, because I think that the Government's action is undemocratic and disgraceful, that I support this Amendment, which has been so excellently and so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton.

2.18 a.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I speak to the Amendment in a spirit of qualified optimism, because in this case the Opposition are not asking a great deal from the Government. We are not asking for an extra day. We are not asking for the erosion of hon. Members' holidays. We are not seeking to put a burden on Government and officials. We are not even asking for inconvenient morning work, or an extension of hours which would disrupt the Government machine. I see the difficulty our previous Amendment would have presented to the Government but we do not have that difficulty in regard to this Amendment, because all we are asking is a little more sleeping time so that we can properly discuss the new Clauses and deal with the many cases of people who are risking losing much more owing to the selective employment tax. We seek time in which to try to get answers to questions that were not answered in our debates of the Finance Bill, and which must be answered if either Bill is to be properly assessed and applied.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) said that we had discussed all this on the Finance Bill, but it is not our fault that this absurd tax has to be introduced in two separate Bills one involving three separate Ministries—none of them the Treasury, although Treasury Ministers will be dealing with them here. It is not unreasonable that in this case, at least, we should seek to follow the Government's example by putting down Amendments which seek to achieve our objects in the two Bills put forward by the party opposite.
There has been a change in the last few days. When we discussed this and similar problems earlier, the circum

stances were different. The discussion to which these Amendments refer will take place after Wednesday next. The new measures which we may expect to hear announced then may make the impact of this tax on the people referred to in these Clauses much worse and harsher. We need, not less time, but more. We need, not less information, but more. We need, not fewer concessions, but more to meet the situation which may arise after Wednesday next if it not to be a mockery of the Government's boast that those who can least afford to have heavy burdens put upon them will suffer least.
Not only do we not know the effect of this tax and the measures in these two Bills, but we do not know what changes they will bring about. Even if we did, we do not know how the Government can cope with those changes. We cannot even get the information to assess the full economic effect. I will give examples of one or two special cases. On pensions, dealt with in new Clause No. 1, how many people will be no longer worth employing? How much will be the effect of the earnings rule, and how much more will have to be paid in pensions if they lose their jobs? This is related to the whole policy in regard to old age, especially that of trying to bring old people into the community and even making special arrangements to enable them to work and feel that they are part of the productive life of the country.
There are similar considerations in regard to part-time workers, dealt with by new Clause No. 3. Some at least will not be worth the extra tax which their employers will have to pay. How many will be an extra charge on National Assistance? Why should they be driven on to National Assistance by this Bill? This is what we want more time to discuss. We must discuss whether it is necessary for this new tax to drive such people on to the dole if it does so. We do not even know what proportion of part-time workers have another job and what will be the effect on part-time workers of a wage freeze if we are to have one after Wednesday next. It must affect the part-time workers' structure. Will it increase the number of fully able people seeking a second job to make ends meet and drive out the less fit, the partly disabled and widows? We do


not know; we must have time to find out and to discuss.
To the deaf and dumb, the mentally handicapped, the disabled workers and blind workers, all the considerations I have mentioned apply. As my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment pointed out, it is these very people for whom we failed to obtain help in the Finance Bill debates in regard to Selective Employment Tax and in other measures. Our suggested Amendments were harshly rejected. We tried also to improve the Government's Ministry of Social Security Bill to give help to the very people referred to in new Clauses Nos. 4, 9, 10 and 11, but we did not succeed. It was on these very points that discussion was curtailed on a previous occasion.
Now we are asking—not as we might well have done, for four hours discussion of this group of Clauses alone but for all the new Clauses and Schedules and new Schedules. That is very little when we consider the questions which remain unanswered. It is the same for the disabled. Constantly the Government assert that they seek not only to give financial help to these people but to bring them back into the community for their own sake. Incidentally, it is probably more economic that those people should be aided to work and to look after themselves than that they should be forced to be kept in institutions. Everything done by this tax and this Bill to which the new Clauses apply contradicts other policy lines and other ideas that the Government are putting forward.
There is the question of office workers. I know of a firm which is assisting Government policy by trying to move more of its office workers out of London. At the moment in its country site it consists of about half and half of productive workers and those who do not qualify under the selective employment repayments. If it complies with the Government's request to lessen the burden and the pressure on the centre of London, by moving its employees out of London, all it does to to attract to itself a liability for an extra measure of tax. It is because of these sorts of absurd anomalies and contradictions as well as because of the injustices in this Bill that we need more time. It is not extra working days that

we seek. The time we need is at the end of the day, the extension of a working day, to enable us to give adequate discussion to these vitally important new Clauses.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Mr. Diamond.

Hon. Members: Oh, no.

Mr. Diamond: As the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) has made perfectly clear, it seems that this is not as major a point as some of the points that we have already discussed, and that it would be appropriate for the Government to indicate their attitude to this request.
As the hon. Gentleman said, in this case a large request is not being made. All that the hon. Lady the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) is asking for is four hours to be added on at the end of a night, which does not impinge on a daytime's debating, or indeed unduly on the convenience of the House. I am fully seized of the argument in that respect. Indeed, the hon. Lady made it clear that the categories which are involved in the new Clauses which she and other Opposition Members would want to discuss are very important categories—the old-age pensioners, part-time workers, the disabled and so on, with whom all of us would have very considerable sympathy indeed.
Therefore, I have approached this matter with a very open mind and have listened with my usual care to the arguments that have been put forward. The hon. Lady said that she was not going over the old arguments. So for 35 minutes I listened with the greatest possible care awaiting a reference to a new argument. I listened with great care, and so did all my hon. Friends, I am sure, but no new argument was forthcoming. There were all the old arguments—important and relevant arguments, arguments which have been put forward time and time again—

Mr. Robert Maxwell: ; Filibustering.

Mr. Diamond: —which have been answered very fully and which, for aught I know, had we not had a Motion of this


kind before us and were the matter being considered in the ordinary way, might or might not be selected by the Chair for discussion. One would not know and one would not attempt to anticipate what the Chair might do. All one can do is to go on past precedents. One would bear in mind in those past precedents the likelihood of the Chair not selecting those cases which have been discussed time a ad time again, in which case the likelihood would be that far from there being this number of proposed new Clauses for debate, there would be very few indeed.

Mr. Ridsdale: The right hon. Gentleman says that there have been no new arguments advanced. What will be the effect of the new economic measures to be announced this week? Is not that a new argument?

Mr. Diamond: I have, therefore, listened carefully, and I have been concerned to see whether there was—

Miss Pike: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to be unfair. I did not argue the case at all. I asked a series of questions, to which we have never had answers. I asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he accepted that it would be good for Ministers in charge of the relevant Departments to hear the sense of the debate.

Mr. Diamond: I listened carefully to the hon. Lady, and perhaps she will reciprocate. She put her points in the form of questions, but that is a normal and natural way of putting an argument. She raised questions on particular cases. If I may say so with the greatest respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am glad that you thought it proper—everyone will agree in the circumstances—for the Opposition to have the maximum extension of your leniency in discussing a possible limitation of their liberties. Obviously, this is a case in which everyone would agree with you, and I am very grateful to you for allowing the debate to range so widely as to enable the hon. Lady to discuss the contents of each new Clause.
If there was any doubt in my mind about whether these Clauses had been adequately discussed already, there was no longer any doubt when the hon. Lady had rehearsed every one of them yet again. I was only sorry that she did

not seem to be fully seized of the purpose of the tax. Again and again, she referred to the effect of the tax on old-age pensioners, office workers, part-time workers, the elderly spinster, saying—I took her words down—that it was a savage and punitive tax on these workers. My hon. Friends were confused as to where her argument was driving. She knows as well as I do that there is no question of any punitive tax on these workers. It is a tax on the employers.

Miss Pike: We have talked about this, we have all had letters about it, we have all seen arguments about it in the Press. For people who lose their jobs it is savage and punitive. The categories I referred to are the categories most at risk in these circumstances.

Mr. Diamond: We have heard all these arguments and we have answered them time and time again. The hon. Lady having, in her 35 minutes, managed to go over all the business, whether to be selected or not, I am not impressed by the argument that there is inadequate time allowed. The Government's Motion provides three hours for this kind of discussion. It is difficult to conceive how a sensible debate can continue for three hours on matters which we have already thrashed out at length. The hon. Lady said that the quality of the debate was the most important thing, not the length of the debate. That was the one part of her speech with which I agreed completely. I have never heard a debate more heightened in quality than one with a time attached to the end of it. It has a most elucidating effect on speeches. Everybody comes to the point much more quickly and deals with the matter, and the debate is much quicker. So I do not think there was any argument in that for an extension of the time.
Finally, I agree that it is not a large matter, but it is a question of going on with our discussions until the middle of the morning instead of finishing at half-past eleven or twelve o'clock. I do not think that this is the best time to discuss our business when we can avoid it. I do not think that that creates the best kind of atmosphere in which to have a sensible discussion.
Besides that, we are putting an awful lot of strain on an awful lot of people. One hon. Gentleman was obviously suffering very considerably from the strain of


having to listen to these debates. A number of hon. Gentlemen opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition, were concentrating very hard on the debate as I often concentrate when I listen to good music. I put my hands together and close my eyes and listen very intently, and nobody can tell whether I am fast asleep or concentrating. I was anxious about the Leader of the Opposition knowing the responsibilities that rest on his shoulders.
It seemed to me, therefore, that there was no good reason for starting oft by accepting this Amendment, which would mean that we should have to go on with our discussions until half-past three or four o'clock in the morning on a future occasion, when the matters raised have been and will be fully discussed. They are important issues. but we have allowed very adequate time for them. I hope that in the circumstances the Opposition will not feel it necessary to press the Amendment.

2.38 a.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: I very much appreciate the opportunity of following the Chief Secretary after what he has just been saying. I have heard him say time and time again in this discussion that the tax is a tax on the employer and not on the employee. That illustrates precisely the difficulty that I find in speeches about the tax from the Government in relation to my constituency.
I have in my constituency a great many employers who are very elderly people, and it is because they will find the tax a very serious burden that I want the opportunity of putting these points fairly and squarely to the Chief Secretary and the Government by having enough time to talk about them. I have a great number of elderly, retired people who mostly require additional assistance. Some manage to get elderly people for an hour or two a week or a day. The tax will catch them and put them in difficulty. What will happen when these people find that the tax is working in the way that I imagine the Government would like it to work?
The Government are presumably imposing the tax because they would like these people to be removed from where

they are working in my constituency to go elsewhere to an export trade. There is no export trade anywhere near my constituency. I have in mind such people as a 71-year old housekeeper—what will the Government do with her if she loses her employment as a result of the tax?—or a 70-year old widow working for several hours a week to improve her income. In these circumstances, there will be real hardship in my constituency as a result of this tax.
Therefore, I should like to have some time to talk about the new Clauses, particularly new Clause No. 3, dealing with part-time workers. We have heard time and again from the Leader of the House and elsewhere that there has been ample time for these things to be discussed. The people who work part-time in my constituency work largely in hotels or schools and if the Leader of the House thinks that schools have been adequately discussed, let him look up the debates in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Only two hon. Members have said anything about schools. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is adequate discussion of the educational system then I ask him to have another look at the matter.
These are questions which could be discussed and on which we should have further opportunity for discussion. I should like the opportunity to discuss these and other points on behalf of my Constituents.

2.42 a.m.

Mr. John Peyton: I am glad of the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) and I am disappointed but not surprised at the reply from the Chief Secretary.
He made it clear that he thought that she regailed the House with the full arguments dealing with these subjects which she mentioned only modestly. It is a pity that the Government could produce only the Chief Secretary to answer this debate. It is not his fault—he is put up there as a stalking horse to take the powder and shot. It does not matter how he answers because we got used to his rather thin answers on the Finance Bill. We have the right hon. Gentleman with no reputation to lose. What a pity it is that the Prime Minister, who has a very unsavoury reputation, is not here to add to it. I am sorry that the Leader


of the House has not been prepared to take part in the debate. I am sorry that we are having a discussion on slaughtering now that the chief veterinary officer has appeared. Obviously we can expect an anaesthetic operation in the near future.
What concerns me is that the Leader of the House said in an earlier debate that it was not part of the Government's intentions to stifle debate. That was the classic phrase of the debate. I do not understand what a guillotine Motion is for except to stifle debate. That is what the Government are doing.
It is unfortunate that my hon. Friend the Member for Melton who went so briefly and cursorily through the points to which this part of the Guillotine refers, should have been subjected to such unfair criticism. One of the difficulties from which hon. Members on this side sometimes suffer is our inability to hear the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). Tonight he was suffering from the misfortune of not having had time to provide himself with the Amendment Paper. Had he done so he would not have got onto that unfortunate point of order which showed that he misunderstood our procedures when he was critical of the fact that the Fisheries Organisation Society, the Crofters Commission, the White Fish Authority, the Herring Industry Board and the Scottish Agricultural Society were not grouped together.
I shall not refer in detail to them. However, though the point is slightly superficial, I was surprised to find organisations like the Bank of England, the Highlands and Islands Development Board and the B.B.C. all lumped together in the same net. They are odd companions. I do not wish any of them particularly well at this hour but I want to deal with a point concerning competition between private enterprise and nationalised industries.
The right hon. Gentleman knows the immense advantages the nationalised industries can enjoy when they have both hands in the Treasury's pocket. It is incumbent upon the Government to ensure that these industries do not enjoy undue and uncovenanted advantages over the private sector. But we are not to have an opportunity to discuss this

highly important matter, let alone have a chance to extract from the Government, already miserly in their replies, a satisfactory answer.
If only one could think of words to wipe the smirks off Ministers' faces and get them to listen to the arguments and persuade them that there is real indignation on this side of the House, though it is not accompanied by surprise at the disappearance of any illusions we might have had about the desire of the Government to play fair and to be reasonable and sensible about the business of the House. But we do feel great disappointment that the Leader of the House has lent himself to this squalid manoeuvring.
The point about the private sector and the nationalised industries is of immense importance. I have had a letter from constituents who feel it galling that the Government have not found it possible to allow adequate time in order to discuss their points of view. Only today I had a letter from a constituent to whom I sent on a letter from the Chief Secretary. My constituent says he cannot adequately express his opinion of a person who says that a tax of this kind does not have an effect on the employee simply because the employer is the person who pays. He points out that this is a facile and thankless argument not worthy of serious attention.
Yet this argument is what we constantly hear from the right hon. Gentleman. The whole range of subjects contained in the Amendments on the Order Paper raise the question of the fair basis of competition between the nationalised industries and the private sector, but the Government are lightly throwing them on one side.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. F. A. Burden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is difficult to hear if hon. Members on the Front Bench opposite must talk in loud voices.

Mr. Speaker: I called the hon. Members to order.

Mr. Peyton: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) for his assistance. Disappointed as we are with this procedure and with the Government's arguments, I must tell the Chief Secretary that, when one sees


constantly Ministers turning to their colleagues smiling and talking, it is not an inducement to sit down but to attempt patiently to repeat the arguments in the hope that one will be luckly enough to catch a Ministers' ear.
My last words, if I am not interrupted, are these. I have had, as have my hon. Friends, more complaints and expressions of indignation about this tax than I have ever had on any other subject. I find it difficult to express my contempt for the Government's unwillingness to receive any arguments about this, but to sit, as they do, crouched over this wretched edifice, determined to protect it to the last. No one will envy the Government, or deny them their right of ownership.

2.50 a.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: The Chief Secretary's response was bitterly disappointing, as was his complete failure to grasp the mood and feeling of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), in a cogent and compelling speech, stressed the very reasonableness of the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike) for additional time—a mere four hours at the end of the working day, to discuss a large number of important new Clauses, Amendments and Schedules, proposed from both sides of the House.
My hon. Friend also introduced an entirely new argument into the debate when he said that since S.E.T. was first introduced a new element had entered into the situation. Against the background of the worsening economic situation, we need more information about this new tax, and the effect that it will have upon the groups mentioned in these new Clauses. Indeed, the Government's proposals to deal with the situation may well nullify the arguments for this tax before we deal with it in Committee. It was difficult to resist the conclusion, listening to the debate, that this singularly unhappy Measure was thought up at the last moment and steamrollered through the Cabinet. But that is no reason why it should be steam-rollered through this House. A more clumsy and unselective tax it would be difficult to find.
I am not going to argue its demerits here. I recognise that no tax is ever popular and I recall the famous remark of Burke:
To tax and to please, no more than to love and to be wise, is not given to men.
Like my hon. Friends I cannot recall, in the 16 years that I have been in this House, any proposal which has produced louder protests and more convincing evidence of injurious effect than this. This has been borne out by the speeches of my hon. Friends tonight, and is not surprising, since the tax affects millions of our fellow citizens.
The tax particularly adversely affects elderly, part-time workers, women workers and the disabled. It adversely affects whole trades in a way in which the Chancellor could not have intended. For example, 90 per cent. of the staff in the office cleaning industries are part-time women cleaners, working about 15 hours for an average of £ 5 10s. a week. Of these, it is estimated that about 25 per cent. are old-age pensioners, widows, wives in difficult circumstances, wives whose husbands are disabled or wives whose husbands are low wage earners. They can find jobs in cleaning because the hours are convenient.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not discuss the merits of the Bill.

Mr. Braine: While I completely accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and will do my best to follow it, it is essential to bring home to Ministers, and in particular to Treasury Ministers, the gravity of what they are doing. When they started out on this course they did not know what the effects were likely to be, and one reason why it is essential to have sufficient time to debate the new Clause and the Amendments to Schedules —only an additional four hours—is to bring home some of these home truths. It is, after all, the weakest categories of workers who will be most adversely affected, and for precisely this reason we demand a more careful and detailed examination of the Bill—and that calls for adequate time.
It is pertinent, and within the Rules of order, to ask who was the expert who advised the Leader of the House that three hours was sufficient time to discuss


17 new Clauses and 12 Amendments to the Schedules? That is an average, as my hon. Friend the Member for Melton said, leaving out time for Divisions, of six minutes for each. Who was the expert who said that in this time we could dispose of the effect of this iniquitous tax on the employment of the elderly and the disabled? Was it the Minister of Health? Surely not. He would be the first to know that active employment for the fit elderly makes good social sense, and that it has long been the high duty and aim of successive Governments to help the disabled to lead as normal lives as their disabilities permit.
Was it the Minister of Pensions? Surely not. She knows that it has long been the policy to encourage the employment of older people and that with the number of pensioners rising from 15·2 per cent. of the total population today to 16·2 per cent. in 1976, it is imperative that the skill and experience of our older workers is not lost to the economy. Was it the Minister of Labour? Surely not. As recently as 27th April the National Joint Advisory Council under his chairmanship was urging employers to adjust working hours to suit older workers and said that part-time jobs might attract older workers who would not be willing to take full-time employment.
Last year the Minister of Pensions conducted a survey of the types of work done by persons of pensionable age. As far as I know, this has been published in only one quarter—the Ministry of Labour Gazette for last July. It revealed that both men and women retirement pensioners earned less, on average, than younger men and women, and that pensioners for the most part were employed in occupations other than production processes. Thus the effect of this tax bears more hardly on the elderly pensioners than one would at first think. Then again, the Minister of Labour knows that better than most the acute difficulty that his officers particularly his disablement resettlement officers, experience in placing older workers in employment, especially the disabled.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must keep to the Amendment.

Mr. Maine: These are relevant matters precisely because of the difficulties that the tax makes for these categories of

worker, who need the special care and protection of the House—because they will not get it anywhere else. There is real need for these matters to be discussed at greater length than is proposed. How many people are affected by the tax? We do not know. There is nobody here to tell us. There is no spokesmen for the Minister of Labour to tell us.
There is also an additional reason for giving more adequate time. The Government are aware that many of what one may call the social service Amendments to the Finance Bill, which were designed to help the elderly and the disabled, were not called. I am not going to refer to them except to say that those Amendments embodied the desire of hon. Members on this side, and, I think, on the opposite side of the House, too, to give a conscious preference to the elderly and disabled in our tax arrangements. The same thinking lies behind some of the new Clauses to the S.E.P. Bill, and it is that thinking which prompts us to move this present proposal.
The Government really must understand that these are matters about which hon. Members on both sides really care. Despite some of the laughter and titters we got from hon. Members opposite in the earlier stages of the debate, I genuinely think that it arose from uneasiness, and I genuinely believe that hon. Members on both sides are beginning to realise the gravity of what is being done, and would like to find a way out of the difficulty.
When, in our earlier debates, we were considering the position of the blind and how they would be affected by the tax, the Financial Secretary, when he came to reply, said there was no case for exemption of the blind because, after all, there were only a few of them anyway, and they were hardly disabled at all, and we need not discriminate in their favour. —[HON. MEMBERS: "No.") I have his words here in HANSARD. The gist of his argument was that the payment of the tax would not discourage employers from employing them. I do not know whether he has discussed this with the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Health. I doubt whether they would agree with his complacent view, but it certainly is the reverse of the truth where the deaf and physically disabled are concerned,


and that is why consideration of the new Clauses affecting those categories of workers should not be curtailed.
Most hon. Members know the difficulty there is in placing the deaf in employment and keeping them there. They are quite unlike the blind: they can see the world about them, but they are often completely cut off from it, and it is because of these difficulties of communication—

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member to lie full length and fast asleep on the benches at the back of the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: It is not usual, but I believe that it is not out of order.

Mr. Braine: Well, these are difficult questions, and I want to carry the sympathy of both sides of the House with me, even if I cannot carry the Treasury Bench. I would, therefore, remind hon. Members of what a good many of us know already, That it is precisely because of the difficulties of communication that those workers have that, it is well known, employers are disinclined to employ them. I know of cases in my own County of Essex of deaf school leavers—I have discussed such cases in the last few days—who present acute difficulty to welfare officers. It is difficult enough to place intelligent deaf youngsters; it is almost impossible to place illiterate ones, and similar difficulty is encountered with the physically disabled.
It is significant in this context that the rate of unemployment among the registered disabled is four times the national average. One out of every 40 workers in this country is a disabled registered person. These, of course, are those who have registered; there are thousands of disabled and handicapped workers in industry who have not, for one reason or another, registered. When we recall that the whole object of the tax is to reduce the number of workers in service industries, is it not likely—and this is the reason why we need further time to bring home to Ministers the gravity of what they are doing—that employers will dispense with their part-time elderly and whole-time disabled

workers, that is to say, any disabled workers over the 3 per cent. quota they are obliged to employ?
The House is entitled to get from the Minister of Labour what view his disablement resettlement officers have expressed. We have not had it yet, and we are not likely to get it unless these matters are discussed more fully. We should have more time in order to hear those arguments which so far have not been advanced.
It is for that reason that I argue—and I am sure that many hon. Members opposite believe this to be the case—that the Government's Motion to curtail discussion on these matters is utterly disgraceful. A job is vital to the well-being of the disabled person. Hitherto, the policy of successive Governments has been to discriminate in their favour—at least, until the advent of this contemptible tax. For these people, the imposition of the tax may make all the difference between a job and no job, between hope and despair.
That is not all. Due to the way in which the matter has been rushed through, too little thought has been given to the kind of detail which a fuller discussion could ventilate. I received a letter from the Disablement Income Group the other day which is relevant. It says
 Whilst being grateful for the recognition of the category of disablement and chronic sick persons by the concession of repayment of the Selective Employment Tax to such a category of persons, D.I.G. is most concerned about the following points: (a) the period during which the disabled person must find the money to pay for the individuals helping him or her; (b) the method by which this repayment can be made more quickly than is usual in the case of persons to whom the repayment is merely a matter of convenience. I would ask you to bear in mind that the period (a) should be the very shortest possible and (b) that the method of claim should be the very simplest possible. When one is poor and sick activities which may not seem too hard for the ordinary individual become insurmountable problems.
That is the kind of detail on which I want satisfaction, on which hon. Member after hon. Member will want satisfaction, and it is only one of hundreds of such points which have been made to me and, I have no doubt, to other hon. Members.
Another matter which was raised in my mail yesterday came in the shape of a


communication from the General Dental Council, which is a statutory body established under the provisions of the Dentists Act, 1957. It says:
 Since the Council cannot curtail their statutory functions, the cost of the proposed new tax will have to be made by the dental profession in paying the registration fees imposed under the Dentists Act, 1957: this would not appear to be part of the Chancellor's intention and it may be thought to be unreasonable and unjust.
I listened to the radio this morning, and I hear that the dental profession is demanding to see the Minister to discuss a whole range of matters affecting the profession. That is the sort of thing—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) wish to intervene?

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was saying that the hon. Gentleman ought to suggest sending them to see the seamen. The seamen might give them an answer.

Mr. Brain: I do not quite see the relevance of that remark. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman, but I am dealing with a serious point, and, if he does not grasp it, I am sure that the Chief Secretary does.
It is the sort of point which is not likely to be discussed in the three hours which have been allotted to us. The only moment at which it could be raised would come at the end of the three hours, and the chance of raising it, therefore, is remote. Yet it is a point of enormous importance to a recognised and, at the moment, an extremely worried profession.
It may be that the Government did not foresee the calamitous effects which their proposals would have upon particular groups, professions and trades. It may be that they did not realise that the hardest hit of all would be the elderly, the women working part-time and the disabled. Surely they see it now, after everything which has been said. If they do, it is incredible that they should come to the House with a Motion designed to curtail discussion on this aspect of what they are doing.
Certainly they started by demonstrating that they had very little heart. Their attitude was summed up by the President of the Board of Trade. When the first outcry was made against the levying of

the tax on charities, the President of the Board of Trade was quoted in the Daily Telegraph of 9th May as saying that
it was a great fallacy to suppose that only unworthy objects should be taxed. Governments taxed to raise revenue and not to reward virtue.
That was the Government's first response to the outcry against charities being taxed, but they changed their minds pretty quickly.
There followed a great outcry when people discovered, for example, that Dr. Barnardo's homes would have to raise more than another £ 100,000 a year, and that the Cheshire Homes—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Braille: I agree, Mr. Speaker. But in that case the Government thought again. Many of my hon. Friends, however, if they have the opportunity of catching your eye, as they desire to do before this debate closes, will seek to point out that numerous independent nursing homes, homes for incurables, industrial health organisations, and so on, all of which are making a useful contribution to the National Health Service, by preventing additional pressures developing on the hospitals are still covered by this wretched tax.
The Chief Secretary may like to have evidence—and no doubt other hon. Members would like the opportunity of producing some—to substantiate what I am saying, and I choose this letter out of my large mail bag, because it comes from a civil servant who is also a constituent of mine. He says:
I am writing to you on behalf of the private hospitals who are not provided for under the Selective Employment Payments Bill, and specifically as a member of the Civil Service Sanatorium Society. Our hospital at Benenden, Kent, and associated Convalescent centres have, during the past year treated over 800 patients for cancer, tuberculosis and allied chest complaints and also provided some financial relief to dependents.
This cost us £ 298,000 for hospital treatment alone "—

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, is not the hon. Gentleman out of order, under Standing Order No. 22, on two grounds: first, that he is discussing the Bill rather than the question of time, and, secondly, that he


is guilty of tedious repetition? He has put the same point several times, and I respectfully submit that he is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for advising me. I have already called the hon. Member's attention to the fact that occasionally he strays from order. The Chair must be the judge of tedious repetition.

Mr. Braine: I am sorry that one so kindly and generous as the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) sought to interrupt me at the point when I was merely going on to say that this organisation would have to find an additional £ 12,000 per annum.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is addressed to the merits of the tax, to which I know the hon. Member objects, and he must relate his remarks to the Amendment which seeks to vary the time allowed for debate on the Bill.

Mr. Braine: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and this is the difficulty which has dogged

us right the way through this debate. There might be some hon. Gentlemen opposite—only a few I think—who feel that this is not a matter of any great moment, who have treated it with levity, and on occasion have been downright discourteous, but this is a matter to which we on this side of the House attach the highest importance.

If the Government persist in curtailing discussion—in preventing my hon. Friends from discussing matters which we regard as of the greatest importance; although with more time there are a few bold spirits on the benches opposite who might be moved to contribute, although none have thus far—they will demonstrate that they not only have no heart, but have no head either.

Mr. John Silkin: Mr. John Silkin rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 215.

Division No. 124.]
AYES
[3.15 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Carmichael, Nell
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Albu, Austen
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Chapman, Donald
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Alldritt, Walter
Coe, Denis
Floud, Bernard


Allen, Scholefield
Coleman, Donald
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)


Anderson, Donald
Concannon, J. D.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Archer, Peter
Conlon, Bernard
Ford, Ben


Armstrong, Ernest
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Forrester, John


Ashley, Jack
Crawshaw, Richard
Fowler, Gerry


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Cronin, John
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dalyell, Tam
Freeson, Reginald


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Gardner, A. J.


Barnes, Michael
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Garrett, W. E.


Barnett, Joel
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Garrow, Alex


Baxter, William
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Ginsburg, David


Beaney, Alan
Davies, !for (Gower)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. d.
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Gourlay, Harry Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Bence, Cyril
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Gregory, Arnold


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Delargy, Hugh
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Binns, John
Dell, Edmund
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)


Bishop, E. S.
Dewar, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Blackburn, F.
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)


Boardman, H.
Dickens, James
Hamling, William


Booth, Albert
Dobson, Ray
Hannan, W illiam


Boston, Terence
Doig, Peter
Harper, Joseph


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Driberg, Tom
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Boyden, James
Dunn, James A.
Hart, Mrs. Judith Hattersley, Roy Hazel!, Bert


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Dunnett, Jack
Hefter, Eric S. Henig, Stanley


Bradley, Tom
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'thm &amp; C'b's)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Eadie, Alex
Hilton, W. S.


Brooks, Edwin
Edelman, Maurice Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Ellis, John
Homer, John


Brown,Bob(N'c'tie-upon-Tyne,W.)
English, Michael
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Ennals, David
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Buchan, Norman
Ensor, David
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)



Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)



Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fernyhough, E.



Cant, R. B.






Howie, W.
Mikardo, Ian
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Hoy, James
Milian, Bruce
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Hughes, Eiirys (Ayrshire, S.)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Ryan, John


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'h'pton, Test)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hughes, Boy (Newport)
Molloy, William
Sheldon, Robert


Hunter, Adam Hynd, John
Morgan, Elysian (Cardiganshire)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Moyle, Roland
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Skeffington, Arthur


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Murray, Albert
Slater, Joseph


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Neal, Harold
Small, William


Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Newens, Stan
Snow, Julian


Kelley, Richard
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Steele, Thomas (Dunhartonshire, W.)


Kenyon, Clifford
Norwood, Christopher
Stonehouse, John


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Oakes, Gordon
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. Summerekill, Hn. Dr. Shirley Swain, Thomas


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Ogden, Eric
Swingler, Stephen


Kerr, Russell (Feitham)
O'Malley, Brian
Symonds, J. B.


Leadbitter, Ted
Orbach, Maurice
faverne, Dick


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Orme, Stanley
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Lee, John (Reading)
Oswald, Thomas
Thornton, Ernest


Lester, Miss Joan
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Tinn, James


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Tomney, Frank


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Tuck, Raphael


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Paget, R. T. Palmer, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


Lipton, Marcus
Park, Trevor
Vartey, Eric G.


Lomas, Kenneth
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Loughlm, Charles
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Luard, Evan
Pentland, Norman
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Wallace, George


Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Watkins, David (COnsett)


McBride, Neil
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
W ellbeloved, James


McCann, John
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


MacColl, James
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Whitaker, Ben


MacDermot, Niall
Price, William (Rugby)
White, Mrs. Eirene


McCuire, Ivlichael
Probert, Arthur Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Whitlock, William


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rankin, John
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Redhead, Edward
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mackie, John
Rees, Merlyn
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Mackintosh, John P.
Reynolds, G. W.
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Maclennan, Robert
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Richard, Ivor
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


McNamarai, J. Kevin
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


MacPherson, Malcolm
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Winnick, David


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Bragg)
Robinson,Rt.Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Woof, Robert


Mallalieu,LP. W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stOw, E.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Mapp, Charles
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Yates, Victor


Marquand, David
Roebuck, Roy
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mason, Roy
Rogers, George Rose, Paul
Mr. Charles Grey and


Maxwell, Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Mr. George Lawson.


Mayhew, Christopher




Mellish, Robert






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bullus, Sir Eric
Drayson, G. B.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Burden, F. A.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Astor, John
Campbell, Gordon
Eden, Sir John


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Carlisle, Mark
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Awdry, Daniel
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)


Baker, W. H. K.
Channon, H. P. G.
Errington, Sir Eric


Balniel, Lord
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eyre, Reginald


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Clark, Henry
Farr, John


Batsford, Brian
Clegg, Walter
Fisher, Nigel


Beamish, Col. Sir Tuften
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cordle, John
Forrest, George


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Corfield, F. V.
FortesCsse, Tim


Biffen, John
Costain, A. P.
Foster, Sir John


Black, Sir Cyril
Craddock, Sir BereSferd (Speltherne)
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan


Body, Richard
Crawley, Aldan
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hrs. John
Crowder, F. P.
Glover, Sir Douglas


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Glyn, Sir Richard


Braine, Bernard
Dalkeith, Earl of
Godher, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Brewis, John
Dance, James
Goodhart, Philip


Brinton, Si, Totten
d'Avigdor-Goldemid, Sir Henry
Goodhew, Victor


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Gower, Raymond


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Grant, Anthony


Bryan, Paul
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Grant-Ferris, R.


Buchanan-Smith, lick(Angus, &amp;M)




Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Douglas Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Gresham Cooke, R.




Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)







Gurden, Harold
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Hall, John (Wycombe)
MacArthur, Ian
Ridsdale, Julian


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rodgers, Sir John (Severloaks)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
McMaster, Stanley
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Harrison, Brian (Ma!don)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maddan, Martin
Scott, Nicholas


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Maginnis, John E.
Sharpies, Richard


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Hastings, Stephen
Marten, Neil
Smith, John


Hawkins, Paul
Maude, Angus
Stainton, Keith


Hay, John
Mawby, Ray
Stodart, Anthony


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Talbot, John E.


Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Tapsell, Peter


Higgins, Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


HIley, Joseph
Monro, Hector More, Jasper
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Hilt J. E. B.
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Teeling, Sir William


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Mott-Radcfyffe, Sir Charles
Temple, John M.


Holland, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Tilney, John


Hornby, Richard
Heave, Airey
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Hunt, John
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John
Vickers, Dame Joan


lremonger, T. L.
Onslow, Cranley
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Jenkin, Patr Mt (Woodford)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Wall, Patrick


Johnson Smith G. (E. Grinstead)
Osborn, John (Half am)
Walters, Dennis


Jopling, Michael
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Ward, Dame Irene


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Weatherill, Bernard


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Webster, David


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Peel, John
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kershaw, Anthony
Percival, Ian
Whitelaw, William


King, Eve'yn (Dorset, S.)
Peyton, John
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Kitson, Timothy
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Knight, Mrs. Jill
Pink, R. Bonner
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Lamhton, Viscount
Pounder, Rafton
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Woodnutt, Mark


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Prior, J. M. L. Pym, Francis
Worsley, Marcus Wylie, N. R.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Younger, Hn. George


Lew s, Kenneth (Rutland)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lloyd, Rt. Hn.Ceoffrey(Sut'ne'dfield)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Mr. Peter Maker and Mr. David Mitchell.


Longden, Gilbert
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David



Loveys, W. H.




Lubbock, Eric

Question put accordingly, That "11.30" stand part of the Motion: —

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 216.

Division No. 125.]
AYES
[3.26 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Bradley, Tom
Davies, Robert (Cambridge)


Albu, Austen
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Brooks, Edwin
Delargy, Hugh


Alldritt, Walter
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Dell, Edmund


Allen, Scholefield
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Dewar, Donald


Anderson, Donald
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John


Archer, Peter
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Dickens, James Dobson, Ray


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchan, Norman
Doig, Peter


Ashley, Jack
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Driberg, Tom


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Dunn, James A.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Dunnett, Jack


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Cant, R. B.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; G'b'e)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Carmichael, Neil
Eadie, Alex


Barnes, Michael
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Edelman, Maurice


Barnett, Joel
Chapman, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Baxter, William
Coe, Denis
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Beaney, Alan
Coleman, Donald
Ellis, John


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Concannon, J. D.
English, Michael


Bence, Cyril
Conlan, Bernard
Ennals, David


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ensor, David


Binns, John
Crawehaw, Richard
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Bishop, E. S.
Cronin, John
Evans, loan L. (Birrn'h'in, Yardley)


Blackburn, F.
Dalyell, Tam
Fernyhough, E.


Boardman, H.
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Booth, Albert
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Boston, Terence
Davies, C. Elted (Rhondda, E.)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Mud, Bernard


Boyden, James
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Foot, Slr Dingle (Ipswich)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, !for (Gower)





Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Luard, Evan
Reynolds, G. W.


Ford, Ben
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Forrester, John
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Richard, Ivor


Fowler, Gerry
McBride, Neil
Roberts, Coronary (Caernarvon)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
McCann, John
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Freeson, Reginald
MacColl, James
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Galpern.Sir Myer
MacDermot, Niall
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St. P'c'as)


Gardner, A. J.
McGuire, Michael
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Garrett, W. E.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Garrow, Alex
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Roebuck, Roy


Ginsburg, David
Mackie, John
Rogers, George


Gordon Welker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackintosh, John P.
Rose, Paul


Gourlay, Harry
Maclennan, Robert
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Gregory, Arnold
McNamara, J. Kevin
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Ryan, John


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sheldon, Robert


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mallalieu,J.P. W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Hamling, William
Mapp, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Hannan, William
Marquand, David
Silkin, John (Deptford)


Harper, Joseph
Mason, Roy
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Maxwell, Robert
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mayhew, Christopher
Skeffington, Arthur


Hattersley, Roy
Mellish, Robert
Slater, Joseph


Hazell, Bart
Mikardo, Ian
Small, William


Hefter, Eric S.
Milian, Bruce
Snow, Julian


Henig, Stanley
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Stonehouse, John


Hilton, W. S.
Molloy, William
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hooley, Frank
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Swain, Thomas


Horner, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Swingler, Stephen


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Symonds, J. B.


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Moyle, Roland
Taverne, Dick


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Howie, W.
Murray, Albert
Thornton, Ernest


Hoy, James
Neal, Harold
Tim, James


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Newens, Stan
Tomney, Frank


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Tuck, Raphael


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Norwood, Christopher
Urwin, T. W.


Hunter, Adam
Oakes, Gordon
Varley, Eric G.


Hynd, John
Ogden, Eric
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
O'Malley, Brian
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Orbach, Maurice
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Orme, Stanley
Wallace, George


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, David (Consett)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, 8.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Wellbeloved, James


Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Whitaker, Ben


Jones,Rt. Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Paget, R. T.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Kelley, Richard
Palmer, Arthur
Whitlock, William


Kenyon, Clifford
Park, Trevor
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Leadbitter, Ted
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Lee, John (Reading)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Lester, Miss Joan
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Winnick, David


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Price, William (Rugby)
Woof, Robert


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Probert, Arthur
Wyatt, Woodrow


Lipton, Marcus
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Yates, Victor


Lomas, Kenneth
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Loughlin, Charles
Redhead, Edward
Mr. Charles Grey and



Rees, Merlyn
Mr. George Lawson.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Biffen, John
Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Black, Sir Cyril
Buck, Antony (Colchester)


Astor, John
Blaker, Peter
Bullus, Sir Eric


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Body, Richard
Burden, F. A.


Awdry, Daniel
Bossom, Sir Clive
Campbell, Gordon


Baker, W. H. K.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Carlisle, Mark


Balniel, Lord
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Braine, Bernard
Channon, H. P. G.


Batsford, Brian
Brewis, John
Chichester-Clark, R.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brinton, Sir Tatton
Clark, Henry


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Clegg, Walter


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Cooke, Robert


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Bryan, Paul
Cordle, John







Corfield, F. V.
Holland, Philip
Peel, John


Costain, A. P.
Hordern, Peter
Percival, Ian


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hornby, Richard
Peyton, Jolla


Crawley, Aidan
Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Crouch, David
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Crowder, F. P.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pounder, Rafton


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Prior, J. M. L.


Dance, James
Johnson, Smith G. (E. Grinstead)
Pym, Francis


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Jopling, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Drayson, C. B.
Kitson, Timothy
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Eden, Sir John
Lambton, Viscount
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Elliot, Captain Walter (Carshalton)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Errington, Sir Eric
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott, Nicholas


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharpies, Richard


Fisher, Nigel
Lloyd,Rt. Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Longden, Gilbert
Smith, John


Forrest, George
Loveye, W. H.
Stainton, Keith


Fortescue, Tim
Lubbock, Eric
Stodart, Anthony


Foster, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Summers, Sir Spencer


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
MacArthur, Ian
Talbot, John E.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Tapsell, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Taylor,EdwardM.(G'gOw,CathCart)


Glyn, Sir Richard
McMaster, Stanley
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Teeling, Sir William


Goodhart, Philip
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Goodhew, Victor
Maginnis, John E.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gower, Raymond
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Tilney, John


Grant, Anthony
Marten, Neil
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maude, Angus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mawby, Ray
Vickers, Dame Joan


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Gurden, Harold
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wall, Patrick


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Miscampbell, Norman
Walters, Dennis


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Ward, Dame Irene


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
Webster, David


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Whitelaw, William


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Harvio Anderson, Miss
Murton, Oscar
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hastings, Stephen
Heave, Airey
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hawkins, Paul
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Hay, John
Nott, John
Woodnutt, Mark


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Onslow, Cranley
Worsley, Marcus


Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wylie, N. R.


Heseltine, Michael
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Younger, Hn. George


Higgins, Terence L.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hiley, Joseph
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Mr. Jasper More and


Hill, J. E. B.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)



Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

3.37 a.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, to leave out lines 20 to 25, and to insert:
2. (a) Two allotted days shall be given to the Report stage and one allotted day shall be given to Third Reading;
(b) the proceedings thereon shall if not previously brought to a conclusion be brought to a conclusion at 11.30 o'clock on the last day allotted in the case of the Report stage and at 10 o'clock on the day allotted in the case of Third Reading and the general provisions set out in paragraph 3 of the Order shall apply.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we are discussing Amendment No. 11, leave out lines 20 to 25; Amendment No. 12, line 20, leave out "Consideration and"; and Amendment No. 13, line 20, leave out "and Third Reading".

Sir K. Joseph: We have now to accept the fact that we shall have only a savagely truncated Committee stage on this important complicated Bill. Amendments have been rejected claiming eight Committee days instead of three. Amendments have been rejected claiming


four hours for new Clauses. Now we come to an Amendment so reasonable that I cannot imagine that the Government vv ill be able to find reasons to object to it.
I am particularly glad that the Leader of the House is here to listen to this argument. He has leant heavily on the theory that since 35 hours were devoted during.he Finance Bill debates to discussion of some of the features of this Bill we should take those 35 hours into account when assessing the adequacy of the length of the time for debate on the further stages of this Bill. I believe that the House will recognis;, when I have finished with that argument that it is utterly inadequate to sustain the view that the: Leader of the House has put before us.
We have to accept that 35 hours were devoted to one narrow although vitally important part of this Bill. They were devoted during the discussion of the Finance Bill, but if hon. Members will look at the arrangement of the Clauses in the Selective Employment Payments Bill they will see that those 35 hours went on Clauses 1 and 2 out of 12 Clauses and two Schedules in this Bill. The fact is that in the proposals put before the House by the Leader of the House, absolutely flagrantly inadequate time is allowed for Clauses 1 and 2, and even more so is this the case for the remaining Clauses and Schedules. According to the timetable two and a half hours only are allowed for Clauses 3 and 4. To Clauses 3 and 4 there are 23 separate Amendments. They cover such important subjects as fair competition between nationalised industries and their private enterprise competitors. They cover amendments seeking to save the interests of the ratepayer so that local authorities will be unable to accept repayment of Selective Employment Tax unless they have made savings of up to 6 per cent. in their own payroll. Yet, the Leader of the House, praying in aid the 35 hours which could not have been used for Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, asks us to discuss those 23 Amendments in 2½ hours only.
The same argument is applied to Clauses 5 and 6. There are 18 Amendments to Clauses 5 and 6, covering a wide range of important subjects. They

could not have been dealt with in the 35 hours used by the Leader of the House as part of his argument, but once again we are allowed only two and a half hours in the Committee stage of the Bill. For Clauses 7 and 8 we are also allowed only two and a half hours. There are 31 Amendments covering a wide range of immensely important subjects. On Clauses 9, 10, 11 and 12 again we are allowed only two and a half hours and there are 38 Separate Amendments. In the Amendments to Clause 10, the interpretation Clause, there are a number of uncertainties of interpretation set out on the Order Paper for resolution in debate between Government and Opposition.
This Bill, as must be plain to all of us, leaves a very large number of uncertainties in the air. There are anomalies, injustices and contradictions of Government policy and, above all, there are uncertainties. These uncertainties will not be resolved in any way by the truncating of the Committee stage of this Bill. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) so rightly said, it is the uncertainties of this Bill which require it, above all, to be submitted to a thorough and comprehensive Committee stage. It is this thorough and comprehensive Committee stage which the Government are denying us all, for the inadequate and unsustainable reason of lack of time.
My right hon. Friends the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and the Leader of the Opposition have explained that it is not this side of the House which is shortening the time available for the Bill. It is the Government who are seeking the safe haven, as they see it, of the Recess and who are ducking their responsibilities to the public by denying adequate time for discussion. It is the public who will suffer.
Hon. Members opposite have been free with their merriment, but surely they also have received letters from worried constituents. Or is it only hon. Members on this side of the House whose postbags have been filled with letters from worried big men in business and small men in business, and women too? We have all had a heavy weight of mail from people who are frightened, worried and scared about the implications of the Bill, and we are not going to be allowed


to discuss the implications, to try to get the Government to rectify matters and clear up uncertainties.
In a normal Bill the occasion to seek remedy after the Committee stage has been carried through properly would be the Report stage, and the purpose of this Amendment is to ask the Government whether, even if they insist on truncating the Committee stage to a mere three days, they will meet our view that the Report stage should be taken on two separate days and the Third Reading on a third day. This would be inadequate to deal properly With all the Amendments on the Paper, but it would be some concession to the weight of the uncertainties and anomalies that need to be sorted out before the Bill becomes law.
I accept that the Government have tried to put right a few of the errors which they made in their hasty drafting. There are several Government Amendments down which in a few cases appear to rectify a wrong, and in a few other cases seem to make confusion worse confounded. But I grant that they have tried to remedy some of their mistakes. There remains, however, an enormous number still to be sorted out and, unless we have a chance to ventilate these worries and problems, we shall not do justice to our constituents and the Government will not permit justice to be done to the country.
I would not try to define when Amendments are normally called by the Chair on Report, but I have said, and I think it to be right, that when a Minister permits himself any vague offer of comfort to the Opposition such as "We will look at it again" or "We will reconsider the drafting", the Chair will very often call an Amendment on Report to allow the Minister to make good his undertaking. The Chair often allows Amendments on Report where a new point not taken in Committee is raised. Without disrespect, Mr. Speaker, I do not generalise on the rhyme or reason for the other occasions on which it pleases the Chair to call Amendments on Report. But we on this side would have good hope, if this were to be a normal Report stage, of being able, in the interests of our constituents, to raise many matters on which there had been some comfort offered by the Government in Committee—if it were a normal Committee stage—on which

new points were made, or which, in the view of the Chair, had not been fully discussed in Committee.
If that is true when there is a full Committee stage, how much more is the protection of the Report stage needed when we are denied a proper Committee stage. I ask the Leader of the House and the Government to realise that it is not just 200 or 250 Opposition Members who are claiming this right. It is claimed by the vast number of constituents of all hon. Members who are uncertain of the impact of the Bill. We all know that the Government have given up "Mark I" of the tax. The tax was brought in with a fanfare of trumpets, it has been riddled by destructive attack from all parts of the House and the country, and they have now thrown in their hand and said that they will try to make it tolerable in succeeding years. If they put the Bill on the Statute Book in this form, the Government will do grave injustice to hundreds of thousands of constituents. They will cause hundreds of thousands of people to be worried and, in some cases, penalised unnecessarily. Let us have a proper debate. We shall then be able to do something to make this Bill less unfair than it is, even if not properly workable until after some years of further trial. There is a great volume of uncertainty, injustice and ill consequence which were not dreamed of when the Bill was drafted. It must be put right.
We have had a recitation of all sorts of interests which are affected by the Bill. I shall remind the Government of some of them which we would wish to ventilate if we and the country had a proper Report stage and Third Reading. First, there is the problem which arises on Clauses 1 and 10, and which could not, therefore, be covered by the Leader of the House's notorious 35 hours, the whole complicated tangle of the definitions of "establishment" and "access".
These may have appeared to be simple words to the draftsmen but they raise all manner of difficulties. How do the Government propose to solve them? By giving Ministers discretion. Discretion in the case of taxation and refunds of taxation, thus defining the weight of taxation, is against the entire tradition of the country and the House. But because the Government have drafted so ill and introduced the Bill so hastily, they are


forced back on the discretion of Ministers for definition.
I ask the Leader of the House to take the point seriously. The efforts of business managers in all sorts of industries which should be devoted to efficiency, productivity and exports will be diverted unnecessarily and wastefully into all sorts of legal conundrums about how to minimise the impact of the tax by finding the right definition for "establishment" in their case. There are all the anomalies arising out of the use of the standard classical definition for a purpose for which it was never conceived.
I will list some of the other subjects that we shall want to raise on Report. There are all the cases raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Melton (Miss Pike), forced loans imposed on charities, the interests of private hospitals and consultants, the deaf and dumb, the blind, disabled employees, elderly employees, mentally handicapped employees, the community, educational and religious organisations which do not qualify as charities, the welfare services and the nursery schools.
These are the great range of, in many cases, voluntary bodies and people who need our sympathy and support. Because of the Government's behaviour their problems are not even being discussed. We have a right to ask the Government to give us a decent Report stage and Third Reading so that their interests can be protected.
There is the whole complex of the hotel, catering and tourist industries. A number of my hon. Friends, and, I am sure, a number of hon. Members opposite, would deeply like time to sort out the anomalies and inefficiencies for these vital industries which will result from the Bill in its present form. There are problems raised by a number of hon. Members about the development areas. We need time not just to ventilate the problems of Scotland, the West, the North-East, the North-West and South Wales. We need time to speak and put forward Amendments which will reduce the burdens on the areas. The Government are damaging the areas if they refuse to concede this Amendment.
There are problems about the agricultural service—the machinery makers, the

corn merchants, the suppliers, the provision merchants; the part-timers; the complicated, convoluted legal and administrative problems connected with transport; the problems of distribution—retail, wholesale, the co-operatives; the problems of shipping; the problems of the oil companies; the problems of scientific and engineering and consulting services; the problems of the industry in which I have to declare an interest, the construction industry; and the impact on sport. Finally—though I cannot expect to cover them all—there are the services proper—dry cleaning, the laundries, the Mrs. Mopps—and the difficult legal definition of "salesman".
These represent just a few of the problems, anomalies and uncertainties that the Government are leaving festering in the minds and lives of the people because they will not give proper time for discussion. I warn the Leader of the House that if he persists in denying proper time for discussion the distraction of businessmen will do grave damage to the prosperity of the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite sigh. But the Government and their supporters have consistently made wrong diagnoses of the needs of the country.
If the Government believe that they can put all this to rights next year by a mass of new Amendments all that they will be doing is prolonging the uncertainty and prolonging the distraction. This Bill is a distracting, irrelevant and clumsy Measure and all we can do is to try to make it less intolerable. That is why I ask the Leader of the House with all my force to look kindly on this Amendment and to give us two days for Report and one day for Third Reading.

3.55 a.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: This is a squalid Bill and we are asking for it to be properly debated. It is clear that it was only because of the manner in which this side of the House insisted on Amendments to the Finance Bill that concessions were made. It was clear that originally the Government had no intention of making concessions. The Opposition pressed for concessions and, very much against their will, the Government were forced to give them. The first was on charities, so we do not have to debate that although there still remains the


problem of endeavouring to defeat the Government's manoeuvre to raise a forced loan.
At first the Government said that they had no intention of giving way. When asked if concessions would be granted the Chief Secretary said "No", but the Government have since said that there was no intention of harming charities. However, charities are still being harmed. The Government are harming many deserving causes, elderly people, charities which are not recognised, nursing homes and other institutions which do a great deal of good. It is clear that pressure from this side has in some cases caused the Government to change their mind. We hope thay will do so in others.
It is curious that it should have been announced in the papers and not on the Floor of the House that, after private discussions with certain members of the couture trade, the Government had made concessions to that trade. If concessions were made as a result of private conversations, it is proper that the Opposition should press for other concessions which we deem more desirable. The couture trade is engaged in the production of high-class clothing which costs £ 60 or £ 70 and much more for each garment.

Mr. Speaker: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Member, but he must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Burden: Of course I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but a question had been raised and I was persuaded to reply to it. Many of my hon. Friends, while accepting that many people should get concessions, find it difficult to understand why this concession should have been given to this—

Mr. Speaker: That argument is out of order. The hon. Member must not yield to temptation.

Mr. Burden: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps one of my most unfortunate failings is that I often fall into temptation and at this hour temptation is that much greater.
If the Report stage were prolonged, we should be able to raise this and other points to try and ensure that those who appear to be more deserving should have an opportunity of being released from

the imposition of the tax. It is difficult to understand why certain classes of people should be exempted—I have named one in particular—-while buying houses set up in this country by overseas firm with the one object of purchasing British merchandise for export should be asked to pay the tax.
We have been told that the Government desire to give the export trade every opportunity. If the Report stage were a little longer, I might find it convenient to put down Amendments calling attention to the fact that it is difficult to understand why couture houses should be exempted while it is to be levied on those delivering milk and bread to old people and thise tending old-age pensioners. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Burden: I assure hon. Members opposite that we do not find this funny. If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) behaved in this way to his constituents about this matter they would quickly show him how much they disliked his attitude. This is a serious matter. It is interesting to note that he thinks it funny that elderly people and the poor should suffer this imposition. We are delighted to know that this is a laughing matter for hon. Members opposite. I assure the hon. Member for Northfield that some of his constituents will have their attention drawn to this and I will be glad to express it to them.
If the Report stage were sufficiently prolonged, I would also like to refer to the statement in the Labour Party manifesto at the election that the Government would do their utmost to ensure an adequate supply of bricks to build more houses. Now the construction industry—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Amendment.

Mr. Burden: I am coming to the point now. The construction industry is seriously concerned because there has been a considerable cut-back. It has to pay the S.E.T. without refund and there is the likelihood of considerable unemployment; there is a surplus of bricks and we want to get rid of them and get the construction industry back into construction. The best way to do that would


be by moving on Report that this tax should not apply here.
One of the reasons why discussion has been guillotined, and why the Government are so anxious to get this Measure through is because it will stifle a great deal of opposition which simmers in the minds of their own backbenchers. It will also give an opportunity, which they would not otherwise have had, of introducing the Second Reading of the steel nationalisation Bill, which has nothing whatever to do with the present circumstances of the country. It will, however, be a great palliative to put before a critical Labour Party conference in October. This is why this squalid manoeuvre is being undertaken. It is in order to pursue party dogma, which has no relevance to the condition of the country. For this they are prepared to stifle discussion upon matters which are relevant to the country's present circumstances.
We may find, as a result of the Prime Minister's statement, that in the light of the new circumstances which will arise, not less time but very much more time will be needed, because the situation will have completely changed. Events will again have overcome the Labour Party and the Government in this matter, as in so many others. We know that the Prime Minister is a master at pulling things out of the bag and we know that he likes to take over control. When he returns from Moscow, the Leader of the House and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite may find that he says, "You have done this while I have been away, and I do not agree with it. We are going to give all the time needed." This is the sort of thing that the Prime Minister does. There is not one Minister who knows how secure his position is on any line he adopts.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order.

Mr. Burden: There is not one—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman sought to raise a point of order and I called him to raise it.

Mr. Burden: The hon. and learned Member's lack of response is exactly the sort of thing of which we are complaining.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should get back to the Amendment.

Mr. Burden: I will do so, Mr. Speaker. Circumstances may well change again at the end of the Prime Minister's speech on Wednesday. The trouble in which the Labour Party are landing themselves is partly because they neither give themselves the time nor have they the ability to handle these problems themselves. They are, by stifling debate, frustrating the Opposition from helping them in a job which they cannot do themselves.

4.10 a.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: Guillotine Motions are always a confession of failure by a Leader of the House. This Motion has been the most abject failure that I have ever heard. Such Motions never make for good debate or good legislation. The Government have made a very great error in their allocation of time for Report. They have allotted too little time for Committee—24 hours—but on Report they are giving only five hours of debate to 10 Clauses, which is demonstrably wrong.
I challenge the hon. Member for Birtningham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who earlier told the House that he thought this the wrong method and that the right way was to have an impartial committee formed by the Chairmen's Panel to allocate time, to say that he honestly believes that five hours is long enough on Report for a Bill which has caused a good deal of disagreement not merely on this side of the House but on his side of the House, too. Quite apart from the Government Amendments, there are 20 Amendments on the Order Paper in the names of hon. Members opposite. This is not just a party matter. It will affect every household in the country. To give only five hours on Report is wrong.
Another weakness of the Motion is that, unlike guillotine Motions in previous Parliaments, it takes several Clauses together in one part of the day. Clauses 3 and 4, 5 and 6, 7 and 8 and 9 to 12 are to be taken together. Right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen who have been in the House for some time know that when a number of Clauses have to be considered within a certain period, the later Clauses in that group are excluded


from discussion. That is a great weakness of this allocation of time in Committee and it strengthens the case for giving more time on Report.
When Clauses 3 and 4 are taken together, hon. Members interested in the problems of local government associations will be excluded by the timetable. I am a vice-president of the Rural District Councils' Association, and there are right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite who are vice-presidents of the Association. I have received a letter from them saying that they have written for support to hon. Members on both sides of the House. But if those two Clauses are taken together in two and a half hours, it is almost certain that the Amendment concerned will not be debated in Committee. Clauses 5 and 6 will be taken together. Clause 5 deals with charities and, as the Amendments show, there will be a good deal of legal argument about it. Clause 6 deals with the much more intimate problem of the household of a disabled person whose wife goes out to work. All these multifarious cases need to be put to the House. It is clear that the Government have failed to bring equality between one needy household and another. It is surely a matter we should be able to discuss adequately. If this matter is grouped with that of charities in two and a half hours of discussion many of the points which ought to be made will be excluded. In these groupings, the second Clause will almost certainly be inadequately discussed.
What is to happen on Report? If we have five hours then, quite clearly, Amendments to the earlier Clauses will be taken, Amendments to the latter Clauses will get shut out. I beg the Government, whether by accepting the Amendment or by trying to reach a compromise on this, to have second thoughts about Report stage. If they do not, then C believe they will make very bad legislation. They will make people all over the country feel they are using dictatorial methods to drive home their Bill without thinking of the hardship in individual cases. I do not think there is any precedent for the double error of grouping Clauses together and then to have a short time on Report. I personally would he quite happy if the Government were

to give two days for Report and then have a shorter time for Third Reading than that suggested in this Amendment because I think the usefulness of Third Reading debates has become much less in recent years than it used to be. As the Government have it, Report is limited to five hours and no more.
I beg the Government to consider that on this they could make a concession without damage to their pride, and they could meet the wishes of the House by giving more time to that debate, bearing in mind that they will suffer if they do not give way on this point.

4.18 a.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is significant and perhaps a little depressing that, once again, on this Amendment the debate has had to be undertaken entirely from this side of the House, and that apart from a sedentary rumble of interruption of a somewhat zoological character during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), and the point of order which vanished into oblivion before it was put, there has been no contribution whatever from the other side of the House. It cannot be due to the fact that they are satisfied with the Government's answer, because no answer has yet been given—and they will not be satisfied when they get it.
It is a little depressing, because this is a House of Commons matter, and there are a certain number of Members on the other side who have in the past spoken up for free speech and free debate, who have accepted the challenge of Voltaire—I think it was—" I hate what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it." Now, faced with a highly restrictive proposal, they cannot do more than interrupt those of us who are fighting for just a little bit more time.
It is very shortsighted. They will be in opposition one day and, at the rate at which the First Secretary is conducting our economic affairs, it will not be long before they are. They may regret setting a precedent of this kind and forcing through the concept that an important Bill requires only five hours for Report stage and three hours for Third Reading. That is why it is regrettable that hon. Members opposite have neither had the courage to justify what the Government are doing or the good sense and Parliamentary feeling to criticise it, and it is a


reflection on them which some of us will not easily forget.
I stress the point that has been made, which is germane to this Amendment, that a restricted Committee stage makes a full Report stage much more important. That is recognised by the very procedure of the House. If discussion in Committee has been restricted for the great majority of hon. Members by reason of the fact that the Committee stage has taken place upstairs, in general more time is allowed for discussion on Report, and I think that I can say without indelicacy or indiscretion that the Chair is apt to be more generous in the selection of Amendments for debate. In other words, the sense of the House recognises that if either the Committee stage is upstairs or for any other reason is restricted, some compensation is given by having a full Report stage.
Ministers must have realised from the course of the debate, which started some 13 hours ago, that we on this side care about and want the opportunity to have a proper discussion of the Bill. For better or worse, the House has decided about the Committee stage, but here is the chance to give some compensation, and the Government will be desperately short-sighted if they do not show some willingness to compromise by accepting a longer time for Report.
In the experience of most of us, two days on Report and one on Third Reading are perfectly normal for an important Bill. No one, not even the First Secretary, will dispute that this is an important Bill. Why should we not have an effective discussion on it?
There is a further point, because those of us on this side who have studied the Bill, together with many hon. Members opposite, have come to the conclusion that, apart from the major issues of policy, there are many smaller errors and errors of drafting which the Committee stage will reveal. It will become necessary for any Minister in charge to decide to put those right, and the normal thing in those circumstances is for the Minister concerned to say, "Very well. If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment in Committee, I will put down an Amendment on Report to put it right." However, if there are only five hours on Report, in carrying out such

undertakings the Minister will take up a very large proportion of the remaining time of the House, because, although Government Amendments will be selected, they come out of the five hours.
I do not know how well the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary have studied the Bill. I do not know whether the Financial Secretary is prepared to come to the Dispatch Box and say that he is confident that these three days in Committee will not reveal many small defects in it, apart from the matters with which we disagree on policy, which will have to be put right on Report. [f this is a money Bill, the Government cannot put it right in another place. Therefore, not only from the point of view of the House but that of the Government, it is extremely important, because undoubtedly the Government will need the Report stage to make the corrections in the Bill which the Committee stage shows to be necessary. That is why I say that five hours are completely inadequate.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) that it is the Report stage that is important. I would not die in the last ditch over the provisions in respect of the Third Reading, but it is fair to point out that earlier today the Leader of the House seemed to think that the debate on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill was so flexible and comprehensive that it might be possible to discuss the economic situation of the country. Therefore, it does riot really tie with Ministers on that bench to say that Third Readings are unimportant. If the First Secretary can explain the mess that he has got the country into, that 'Third Reading will be a very remarkable proceeding indeed.

Sir D. Glover: It will take the right hon. Gentleman a great deal of time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As my hon. Friend says, it will take a great deal of time, but we shall be interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman try.
Three hours for the Third Reading are quite inadequate. Presumably there will be a speech from the Government Front Bench, a speech from my right hon. Friend, and I suppose a winding-up speech. It will mean that very few other


hon. Members will have a chance to take part in a debate on what nobody has disputed is an important Bill.
The Government, with their majority, have got their way on the thing that really saves them the time, the Committee stage. They have cut us down from eight days to three. Anyone who has ever been responsible for handling a Bill in this House knows that it is the greatest mistake to push one's advantage to the logical limit and to decline to give some concession to the Opposition. It never pays in the long run.
The Government have got their way on the major point. We are now concerned with only two days on Report and one on Third Reading as opposed to one day for both those stages. The Government could agree to that without seriously disrupting their programme. They could sit for two days longer without causing a disaster. We know that the First Secretary wants to be up for the 12th to go grouse shooting or whatever it is he does, but I think that most of us would be prepared to stay two days, to have what is no more than the normal time allowed and accepted in this House for Report and Third Reading.
Cannot the Government show a little generosity, a little flexibility, a little management of the House of Commons, and perhaps even in this respect a little intelligent self-interest, instead of sitting on the splice and saying that they have taken the advice, as the Leader of the House said earlier today, of some mysterious people who apparently know more about the management of the House of Commons than hon. Members do? They should not just say, "This that we have laid down in this complex Motion is the testament handed down from Mount Sinai and must be carried through to the last stone."
It lies in the Government's power to do this. They can put the Whips on, move the Closure, and carry it. Whether it will do them any good in the long run is a matter on which they might reflect. What is certain is that they will do no good for the House of Commons.

4.28 a.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: It has been said many times tonight that the Government are being hard

hearted, cruel, unfair, and so on, in not allowing more time for our debates, but I believe that there is something more sinister going on. I have been watching the Government, and I believe that some strange constitutional changes are taking place in this country at the present time.
The Government seem to be becoming more authoritarian and anti-democratic every day that they exist, and no doubt on Wednesday we shall hear a good deal more about this. It is not very strange, really, because Ministers have been flying all over the world meeting antidemocratic leaders. The Prime Minister is in Moscow at the moment, closeted with Mr. Kosygin. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite have been meeting General de Gaulle, and the Minister of State recently went to Spain. No doubt he discovered that General Franco has been in power for 30 years this weekend. How nice, right hon. Gentlemen opposite must be thinking, it would be to be in power for 30 years. To start with, they must clamp down on Parliament.
Clauses 1 and 2 of the S.E.P. Bill contain the guts of the Measure and 192 Amendments have been tabled to those provisions. Possibly only half a dozen of them will be called, although we have constituency and other interests we should like to discuss. The Leader of the House, meanwhile, has given the impression that since we spent 35 hours discussing S.E.T. on the Finance Bill, all these issues have been discussed. That is not so.
In my constituency there is great interest in sport. We have the Twickenham Rugby Football Ground, the Harlequins, rowing clubs and other sporting activities. These will all be adversely affected by S.E.T., yet the subject has not been discussed. There is also a nonferrous metal scrap works in my area, and it is anxious that its interests should be debated in the House. Many of my hon. Friends have added their names to an Amendment on this subject. Many other important subjects which should be debated will not be because of the lack of time.
The Government are attempting to clamp down on the democratic discussion of the House, and this is in line with their activities since they came to power. If they remain in office for another two


or three years we may see them become even more authoritarian, having been driven into a corner, with possibly the introduction of import quotas and other restrictions. They are on a slippery slope taking a dangerous path. For that reason we must oppose what they are doing with our utmost power.

4.32 a.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I entirely support the remarks of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), who drew attention to yet other aspects of S.E.T. It is vital that we should discuss the way in which this new tax will affect certain interests, particularly the part played by the non-ferrous scrap metal industry to the economy. [Interruption.] This industry makes a significant contribution to our balance of payments. The scrap paper industry also makes a considerable contribution. I cannot see how these interests can be debated in the short time the Government are making available for the S.E.P. Bill.
I do not believe that all hon. Gentlemen opposite agree with the action of the Government in this matter. If one reads the OFFICIAL REPORT of our deliberations on S.E.T. one finds that some hon. Gentlemen opposite with considerable experience of these matters have expressed bitter opposition to the tax in its present form. For example, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) stated:
 If my right hon. Friend the Chancellor loses his job as a Minister, because of the operation or inefficiency of S.E.T., I assure him that he will not get another job in commercial circles. S.E.T. is anything. but a business proposition ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 988.]
The right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) said that the whole form of the tax was wrong, because it should be non-selective and should apply throughout manufacturing industry as well as the service industries. He, like hon. Members on this side of the House. believes that scarce labour is being wasted in manufacturing as well as service industries. I believe that not all these silent tricoteuses sitting on the benches opposite like the Guillotine any more than we do ourselves, and one reason why the Liberal Party objects to this Guillotine and thinks that the Amend-

ment we are discussing should be accepted, is because we are fearful that we shall have little opportunity for presenting those Liberal Amendments in the very limited Committee stage.
We should like, therefore, to put them down on Report stage, and although I cannot refer to them all because we have tabled a great many, one which I think is different from any tabled by the Conservative Opposition, is that concerned with office employment where the office is moved to the provinces. I should have thought that that would have appealed to the Government. I should have thought the Government would have liked to encourage that policy, and we offer a means of encouraging it.
Apart from all this, there is one fundamental reason why more time should be given for Report. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) has spoken of the Prime Minister's return and of the statement which he is to make on Wednesday. In my opinion, and I hope that most hon. Members will agree with me, we are now facing an entirely different economic situation from that which obtained when we debated the Second Reading of this Bill. Much of what the Minister of Labour said then now falls to the ground in the face of the new economic situation. I cannot go through all of his argument, but the right hon. Gentleman said among other things that one of the main purposes of this tax
…is to raise additional revenue in order to restrain consumer demand and thereby improve our balance of payments position 
and he then went on to say,
Right hon. and hon. Members opposite….
that is, on this side of the House,
…have generally not sought to argue that it was wrong to raise extra taxation this year, nor have they seriously questioned the amount which my right hon. Friend has seen St to raise."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 933.]
That might have been right at that time, but since then we have had an increase in Bank Rate, back to 7 per cent., and now there is the threat of most severe restrictions. I must say, frankly, that the measures which the Government will take will cause really serious unemployment in the autumn.
Let right hon. and hon. Members opposite remember that if this tax comes


on top of the new Bank Rate and all the other restrictions, a most serious situation will be created for our economy. The Labour Government are falling into the same trap which caught successive Conservative Governments; that is, they are slamming on the brakes when the economy is beginning to run down of its own accord. That will be the main effect of this selective tax.

Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. Member is out of order.

Mr. Lubbock: It may be out of order, but it is not for the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. William Hamilton) to make comment. He is not yet Deputy Speaker, and there are some people who think he might not be very good at the job. I must be in order, in any case, because I am showing that a completely new situation will exist as a result of the Prime Minister's statement on Wednesday and, since the Committee stage of the Bill is set down also for that day, it will not be possible to table any Amendments which hon. Members may think necessary to the Bill consequent upon that statement.
Surely it will be necessary for hon. Members to study the substance of the Prime Minister's statement in detail and then to consider what Amendments shall be brought forward in the light of what the Prime Minister proposes? It is highly improbable that we should agree that this amount of money needs to be withdrawn from the economy or that the form of this tax should remain as it is in the light of these restrictions.
I am not prepared to see us drifting into a situation in which large-scale unemployment is created by the Government and the economy is gradually run down, growth ceases altogether and we return to a period of Tory stagnation once again.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Mr. Arthur Lewis indicated assent.

Mr. Lubbock: I am glad to see the hon. Member nodding in agreement with me. I dare say that there are many hon. Members on that side who believe that what I say is true and who are ashamed of their own Government for allowing us to drift into this situation where unemployment will be created.
I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour listening to what I am saying. The hon. Lady will bear a heavy responsibility this autumn when we have half a million people out of work. That will be the result of the Selective Employment Tax combined with the further restrictions which are to be imposed. This is why it is vitally necessary for us to have more time on Report to try to undo some of the serious damage that the Government are doing to the economy.

4.42 a.m.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I should like to try to add some new points to this important discussion about the time available for Report stage of the Bill. Sometimes the House tends to overlook the very great importance of the Report stage to new Clauses. In Committee, one has what amounts to a Second Reading of a new Clause and it is not until Report that we have a chance of amending the new Clause, assuming that it has been accepted and assuming that after it has been accepted thought is given to whether additional, fewer or amended words are required.
As already 17 new Clauses to the Bill are on the Notice Paper, I suggest to the Chief Secretary that to allow only from probably not until 4 o'clock in the afternoon until half-past eight-4½ hours at most—will not give the House adequate time to consider what Amendments to the Committee stage of the new Clauses that may be accepted, as we hope, in Committee. The 17 new Clauses themselves could well occupy four and a half hours without even considering one Amendment which had been put down in Committee and which the Government required further time to consider before deciding whether to accept it, let alone the additional Amendments which they might move.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has referred to the Government sitting on the Front Bench like tricoteuses I wonder what they are knitting. Could it be balaclava helmets against the icy blast of the economic blizzard that is about to overtake us? What are they doing?

Sir D. Glover: Dropping stitches.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I dare say that some of them are trying to undo knots.
It is no good the Chief Secretary sitting there throughout these debates with a benign grin on his face, occasionally a slight sniff of disapproval, and then getting up and saying that he has heard all these arguments before, because he has not. He has not by any means heard them ail before. He has completely ignored the new arguments which have been put to him, as did his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House earlier in the debate when we were discussing the main Motion.
We have still not been told whether the Government have recognised that the circumstances have changed since the Bill was first thought of and whether they are prepared to recognise these changes and, in the present circumstances, alter what they propose to do. They are blundering on. The tumbrils are trundling down the cobblestones loaded with noble-headed, splendid-bodied Amendments, and the tricoteuses sit in anticipation, licking their lips at the thought of one after another of those heads falling. Let the Government remember the Terror. What will fall, and I think what must fall with them unless they see sense at the last minute, is the economy of Britain.
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the deeper the economic crisis we are moving into the more important it is that the Government should be prepared to think again about this tax as a whole—let alone the methods of repaying, let alone the Amendments already on the Notice Paper. If the Government want to save the country, they must recognise that when circumstances change they themselves must be prepared to change their minds. It is no good their relying on the Guillotine to stifle the truth—because that is what, in fact, they are trying to do in proposing this Guillotine.

Mr. Diamond: Mr. Diamond rose—

Mr. T, L. Iremonger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance. You may have observed, as hon. Members have observed, the somewhat sinister concatenation of the Financial Secretary and the Patronage Secretary. May we be assured that, as 12 hon. Members on this side have risen and many of us have been trying to catch your eye all night, the Closure will not be taken?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member can never be assured that the Closure will not be taken. Mr. Diamond.

4.47 a.m.

Mr. Diamond: The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) has made the same point as he made in the debate on the previous Amendment, namely, that it is not a question of adjusting the timetable but of the Bill being withdrawn. That argument was not very appropriate for amending the timetable for the Committee stage, and It is not a very appropriate argument for amending the timetable for Report stage and Third Reading. No matter how long one extends the Report stage one does not get the opportunity of withdrawing the Bill in that way.
That being so, I turn at once to the arguments so ably advanced by the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), and other hon. Members. They made, I think, three simple points, and I would answer them shortly, if I may, because I am sure that at this hour of the morning no one wants to spend an unnecessary length of time in debating whether we should enter into a debate.
The first point made was that as the Committee stage has been truncated we need a longer period for the Report stage and the Third Reading. The second point was that as the normal time for Report stage and Third Reading is respectively two days and one day, the proposal of one day should be altered to three days. The third point was that the Government would, if they were sensible, view with sympathy Amendments of this kind which do not go to the root of the matter but are somewhat less severe than those which we have already discussed.
May I say with regard to the Government being not only willing but anxious to listen to the views of the House and to adjust the timetable Motion in accordance with any Amendment which they can reasonably accept, that my right hon. Friend said, in introducing the Motion at the start of the day's debates, that he would—and I think these are his exact words—" view with sympathy ", Mr. Speaker, of the Amendments that you have selected, the two Amendments which follow this Amendment.
But this is not an Amendment of that kind, but a very serious Amendment which would extend from one day to three days—a very considerable addition of time—the discussion on the Report stage and Third Reading. The first argument is that the Committee stage has been truncated and is unduly short, so that one needs additional time. The right hon. Gentleman has not got his argument mounted at all. In his view the Committee stage, which this House has now agreed, is short, in our view it is adequate. In the view of the Opposition when they were in Government it was neither short nor adequate, but generous.
As I indicated in my earlier speech, we are allowing a larger amount of time than the Opposition when they were the Government allowed for similar Bills—[An HON. MEMBER: "There has never been a similar Bill."]—similar in length. That is an interesting comparison, because the other Bills I referred to all bear a close similarity. It is not as though there were a wide discrepancy in the amount of time allowed between the shortest and the longest in terms of Clauses. There is a considerable similarity. On average we are being twice as generous as the Opposition were when they were the Government.
I gave the details at an earlier stage. We have spent 35½hours discussing the very points which will come up again.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes indeed. I have been in for every one of those minutes—seconds I could almost count them-35½. hours discussing most of the related matters which will arise and all the major matters which will arise on this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman does not accept what I said. Of course he does not; it is not his view, it is our view. We are allowing a proper and adequate time for the Committee consideration and therefore we do not recognise for one second that the Report stage should be any longer than normal because of a "truncated", as it has been called, Committee stage.
The second and the only argument which I now have to answer is, what is the normal time for Report stage and Third Reading? If we look at the precedents we find that on the National Health Service Bill, 1952, a timetable

Motion was put down by the Opposition when they were the Government and the time allocated for Report and Third Reading was one day. For the National Health Service (Contributions) Bill, 1961, a timetable was put down by the Opposition when they were the Government and the time allotted to Report and Third Reading was one day. On the Army Reserve Bill, 1962, a timetable Motion was put down by the Opposition when they were the Government and the time allotted was one day. There was the London Government Bill, 1963. Everyone will remember what a lengthy and contentious Bill that was, an extraordinarily long Bill. There was a timetable Motion by the Opposition when they were in Government, and the time allotted for Report and Third Reading was one and a half days.
One and a half days for the London Government Bill, the most contentious Bill that there has been in this House for some time—one and a half days, I say there is no question of the Committee stage being cut short—indeed, it is more generous—  [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Lady wishes to get up and say "Rubbish".

Miss J. M. Quennell: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the Transport Bill which passed through this House in 1962, which had a Committee stage upstairs of five months before a Guillotine was applied?

Mr. Diamond: We have been through all these arguments.

Mr. H. P. G. Channon: Not that one.

Mr. Diamond: I am describing to the House the amount of time which has been allocated to Report and Third Reading, which I understood to be the subject of the Amendment before the House at present, not the Committee stage. On Report and Third Reading we do not accept the argument that there is any carry over from a shortened Committee stage, because in our opinion the Committee stage has been generous as compared to the action of the Opposition when they were the Government.
So far as the Report stage is concerned, normality in these circumstances is one day. We are asked to grant the normal.
We grant it with pleasure—one day. We think that is an appropriate period.

Mr. Lubbock: The right hon. Gentle-main said he was on his final point. Will he be good enough to deal with my point that we need this extra time on Report to deal with any further considerations which may arise from the Prime Minister's statement on Wednesday?

Mr. Diamond: I did not think it was a very adequate point, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive my saying so, but I will be very glad to deal with it. I did not think it was a very important point. I said at the start of the debate that there were these three major arguments and that it was right to answer them, but I did not think the House would want me to make a longer speech at this hour of the morning. There are two answers to the hon. Gentleman. The first is that it is not unlikely that the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, when considering what proposals to put before the House or what decisions to announce, will have taken into account the likely course of events on the rest of the Government's programme and their legislation.
The second answer is that there will be plenty of time in Committee and on the Report stage, if that is necessary, to put forward arguments relating to a new set of circumstances if the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is the appropriate course.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman was saying that the normal time for the Report stage was one day. Will he make it clear that he was referring to guillotine Motions, and that on major Measures generally the period that I gave of two days is the normal? If he will look at the proceedings on the National Insurance Act, 1959, he will find that it is three days. He quoted the London Government Bill. Will he say how many days in Committee that Bill had before the Guillotine fell on the Report stage?

Mr. Diamond: I thought—if it was not clear let me repeat it, though I kept on saying it—that on each and every one of these examples I made it clear that they were timetable Motions introduced by the Opposition when they were in govern-

ment. I repeated that phrase on each one. The normal, therefore, is the normal in relation to what we are considering. We are considering a timetable Motion at the moment. Having regard to the adequate amount of time that we have given to the Committee stage and the fact that the normality, so far as guillotine Motions are concerned, is one day for Report and Third Reading, I regret to say that I cannot recommend that this Amendment should be accepted.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Does the right hon. Gentleman's Report period take into account the fact that this Bill may well be certified as a Money Bill, and therefore there will be no procedure for amendment in another place, which in the case of all the other Bills was possible, and in the case of the London Government Bill there was a very protracted discussion in another place?

Mr. Diamond: My understanding of the matter is that no Bill can be considered for the purpose of being certified as a Money Bill by you, Mr. Speaker, until you know what the Bill is—that is to say, until it has passed all stages in this House. When it has passed all stages in this House, then it is a matter for your consideration and not for the Government.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Would the right hon. Gentleman, before he sits down—

Mr. Speaker: I think the right hon. Gentleman has sat down. Mr. Godber.

5.0 a.m.

Mr. Godber: The fact that I am following the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that we feel that there has been adequate discussion of this matter. We hope that it will continue for a long time. But I wish to deal with one of the points made in the extraordinary speech to which we have just listened. Even the right hon. Gentleman's own side must admit that it was a completely inadequate speech on a matter of such seriousness as this.
The right hon. Gentleman's arguments in reply to our Amendment did not face up to the needs of the situation at all. I was astonished at his answer on the impact of the new statement on financial policy generally, which we are led to


expect this week, in relation to our discussions on the Bill and the Report stage in particular. He said that these new matters had been taken into account, but the first draft of the timetable Motion was dated as early as 8th July, and there was no question of any economic changes being expected till Thursday of last week. So, when this draft of the Motion was first considered, there was no question of any new statement on financial policy, and it could not have been considered in relation to the original intention to Guillotine of the Bill.
There are many points even more serious than that to be taken, but various of my hon. Friends were absolutely right to concentrate on it, as did the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for the Liberal Party. Changes of this kind can completely alter the impact of the Bill, and the Report stage will call for considerable discussion. But we are to be limited to only a very short time. Our proposal for greater time would at least help to alleviate some of the harm caused by the restricted Committee stage. The more restricted the Committee stage, the more necessary a proper Report stage becomes. The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with that argument at all.
The right hon. Gentleman's argument about similar Bills was an utter travesty of the point. The Bills had no similarity whatever except, presumably, in the number of Clauses. Is a Bill which introduces an entirely new approach to taxation to be judged on the number of its Clauses? Moreover, it is a selective Bill and, for this reason, it has raised worries throughout an enormous and diversified range of industries, all of which feel that their problems deserve discussion and examination in the House. In this respect, if no other, the Bill is entirely different from the others to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
The Amendments to the Bill have not been put down for fun. They have been put down because of the representations from a large number of industries and concerns of all kinds and from people who thought that they should have been included under Clause 1 or Clause 2, or from industries which feel that they have been unfairly treated because others who are their competitors or are closely related were in Clauses 1 or 2 and they

were not in either. This created a sense of unfairness and grievance, reflected in the postbags of hon. Members. We have been denied sufficient time to discuss it in Committee and are now being denied sufficient time to discuss it on Report. It is outrageous.
I cannot discuss particular industries, but I must call attention to their very wide range. This is shown in Amendments which have not been selected. which group the industries. Ones that I have been particularly concerned with recently are those ancillary to agriculture. While a concession was made to agriculture, it did not refer to industries ancillary to agriculture. A range of Amendments has been tabled in relation to these points, about which many of my hon. Friends feel very strongly, and they wish to represent the views of their constituents about them, but because of the restricted time in Committee they know that the chance of doing so is slight, and so they want an opportunity on Report.
Rejection of this Amendment by the Government will mean that it will be impossible. Many small businesses with one or two employees will be drastically affected without their grievances being able to be aired here. That is monstrous. That runs right through the different trades and industries. This is quite apart from the other humanitarian issues which will not have adequate discussion—parttime workers, the disabled, and so on.
I put to the Government a specific point in relation to the way in which the Bill emerged and the way in which discussion of it is bound to be affected. The Chancellor announced in his Budget speech that we should have a tax of this nature, and we were told certain things about it. But progressively since then we have had a substantial number of Amendments to the idea, some incorporated in the Bill. But it is abundantly clear that the Government have given inadequate time and thought to the preparation of it, and that has a direct bearing on the amount of time which should have been given for the Committee and Report stages.
The Chancellor blundered first over agriculture. He tabled an Amendment in relation to that first of all. He blundered over charities. First, there was complete rejection, and this was changed later. Mines and quarries were brought


in again at a later stage. Then there was a concession for people employed to look after the aged and sick. These concessions were introduced at various stages. So the longer the discussions go on, the greater the number of concessions that might come forward, and if we are prevented from having proper discussion the less chance there is of concessions for other members of the community. The gravamen of our charge is that it is known that there are grave anomalies and yet we shall not have the opportunity to discuss them.
It had been held out during the Finance Bill and the Second Reading of the Selective Employment Payments Bill that there would be adequate time for discussion in Committee. The Chief Secretary said that the time was adequate, but he has not rebutted the charge which I made, that it is not adequate by reason of the type of Measure which it is and the selective nature of its impact on different parts of the community. The Government are not fulfilling their indications about time on Committee. The Chancellor himself, talking about the Bill, said that he would be present and that if he could not then one of his hon. Friends representing the Treasury would be.
When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that this was not good enough, the Chancellor told him that when a member of the Cabinet spoke he spoke with the authority of the Government and that when the Minister of Labour spoke he spoke for all the Government. We all remember the Minister of Labour's speech on Second Reading, when he said that the Bill fell somewhere short of perfection. This indicates that it requires more amendment and, therefore, more time. The Government, on their own showing, have conceded that the Bill is short of perfection and they have a duty to see that we have adequate time to discuss these matters. This is where the Government are failing so grieviously.
The Minister of Labour said during that speech
I have no doubt that opportunities will arise in Committee for these issues to be examined in greater detail."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 939.]
Is he happy about the fact that we are not to have the time to discuss the Bill

adequately on Report or Committee? May we be told whether he is happy that the assurances which he gave are not being honoured?
After the Chancellor had told us about the farmers he knows who spend their time at Ascot, he said:
 As to marginal cases that are left, I want to go into those very carefully."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 23rd June, 1966; Vol. 730, c. 1049.]
We want to go into them very carefully. We want to help, but we are being prevented from doing so. The Government should honour that undertaking of the Chancellor's, otherwise it will be exposed as a hollow sham.
I return to the question of the changes which could have to take place because of the interplay between the effect of the provisions of the Bill and the announcement which we are told to expect on Wednesday. The T.U.C. is already concerned about the effect of 'the tax on employment in certain industries. We do not know how these will be affected by Wednesday's measures. It may well be that additional amendments will be required to ensure that some of these industries have a more favourable position. If these measures have the effect which some newspapers say they will then they will impinge on some industries more than others. We have to see the comparison between the way in which they impinge and the way in which the tax impinges.
Surely, therefore, there should be opportunity on Report to table additional Amendments to deal with specific problems which will affect the employment of men and women and which should be the concern of all of us on both sides of the House. It is our charge that the Government are preventing discussion and are giving no adequate reason for doing so. All we have had is the lame comment of the right hon. Gentleman that on similar Measures we used the Guillotine. But there is no similarity between this Bill and the others, and the Government know it. They are ashamed of the way in which they are curtailing discussion. We reject it and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will continue to do so.

Mr. John Silkin: Mr. John Silkin rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 267, Noes 212.

Division No. 126.]
AYES
[5.16 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Albu, Austen
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Floud, Bernard
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Alldritt, Walter
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mailalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersleld,E.)


Anderson, Donald
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mapp, Charles


Archer, Peter
Ford, Ben
Marquand, David


Armstrong, Ernest
Forrester, John
Mason, Roy


Ashley, Jack
Fowler, Gerry
Mayhew, Christopher


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mellish, Robert


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Freeson, Reginald
Mikardo, Ian


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Galpern, Sir Myer
Milian, Bruce


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gardner, A. J.
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Barnes, Michael
Garrett, W. E.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Barnett, Joel
Garrow, Alex
Molloy, William


Baxter, William
Gourlay, Harry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Bence, Cyril
Gregory, Arnold
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Bennett, James (C'gow, Bridgeton)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, Roland


Binns, John
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Bishop, E. S.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Albert


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Neal, Harold


Boardman, H.
Hamling, William
Newens, Stan


Booth, Albert
Hannan, William
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Boston, Terence
Harper, Joseph
Norwood, Christopher


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oakes, Gordon


Boyden, James
Hattersley, Roy Hazell, Bert
Ogden, Eric


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hefter, Eric S.
O'Malley, Brian


Bradley, Tom
Henig, Stanley
Orbach, Maurice


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Orme, Stanley


Brooks, Edwin
Hilton, W. S.
Oswald, Thomas


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, s'fr)


Brown,Bob(N' c' tl e -upon-Tyne,W)
Hooley, Frank
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Homer, John
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Paget, R. T.


Buchanan, Richard (C'gow, Sp'burn)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Palmer, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howie, W.
Park, Trevor


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Carmichael, Nell
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Pentland, Norman


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hunter, Adam
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Chapman, Donald
Hynd, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Coe, Denis
Jackson, Cohn (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Concannon, J. D.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Conlan, Bernard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Crawshaw, Richard
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Probert, Arthur


Cronin, John
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rankin, John


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Redhead, Edward


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kelley, Richard
Rees, Merlyn


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kenyon, Clifford
Reynolds, G. W.


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Richard, Ivor


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


de Freitag. Sir Geoffrey
Leadhitter, Ted
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, John (Reading)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dell, Edmund
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow E.)


Dewar, Donald
Lever, Harold (Cheatham)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Roebuck, Roy


Dickens, James
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)
Rogers, George


Dobson, Ray
Lipton, Marcus
Rose, Paul


Doig, Peter
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Driberg, Tom
Loughlin, Charles
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dunn, James A.
Luard, Evan
Ryan, John


Dunnett, Jack
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McBride, Neil
Sheldon, Robert


Eadie, Alex
McCann, John
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Edelman, Maurice
MacColl, James
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Edwards, Robert (BilstOn)
MacDermot, Niall
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Ellis, John
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
SkefHngton, Arthur


Ennals, David
Mackie, John
Slater, Joseph


Ensor, David
Mackintosh, John P.
Small, William


Evans, Albert (Islington. S.W.)
Maclennan, Robert
Snow, Julian


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Fernyhough, E.

Stonehouse, John


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.




Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Swain, Thomas
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Swingler, stephen
Wallace, George
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Symonds, J. B.
Watkins, David (Consett)
Winnick, David


Taverns, D ck
Wellbeloved, James
Winterhottom, R. E.


Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Woof, Robert


Thornton, Ernest
Whitaker, Ben
Wyatt, Woodrow


Tinn, Jams
White, Mrs. Eirene
Yates, Victor


Tomney, Frank
Whitlock, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tuck, Raphael
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mr. Charles Grey and


Urwin, T. W.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mr. George Lawson.


Varley, Eric, G.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
0


Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)





NOES


Alison, Mietnael (Barkston Ash)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Maude, Angus


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mawby, Ray


Astor, John
Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, R..1.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'cl'n)
Goodhew, Victor
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Awdry, Daniel
Gower, Raymond
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Baker, W. H. K.
Grant, Anthony
Miscampbell, Norman


Balniel, Lord
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Monro, Hector


Batsiord, Brian
Gurdon, Harold
More, Jasper


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, W. C. (Denbigh)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Harris, Frederick (Croydon, N.W.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heaton)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Bitten, John
Harrison, Brian (Mahlon)
Murton, Oscar


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Heave, Airey


Blaker, Peter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Yore
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Body, Richard
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Nott, John


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hastings, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hawkins, Paul
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hay, John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Braine, Bernard
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Brewis, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heseltine, Michael
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Peel, John


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hiley, Joseph
Percival, Ian


Bryan, Paul
Hill, J. E. B.
Peyton, John


Buchanan-Ernith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Buck, Antory (Colchester)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintir.
Pink, R. Bonner


Builus, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Pounder, Ration


Burden, F. A.
Hordern, Peter
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Campbell, Gordon
Hornby, Richard
Prior, J. M. L.


Carlisle, Mark
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pym, Francis


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hunt, John
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Channon, H. P. G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn, Sir Peter


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Clark, Henry
Irvine, Bryant Gartman (Rye)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Cooke, Robert
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Ridsdale, Julian


Cordle, John
Jopling, Michael
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Corfield, F. V.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Costain, A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Crawley, Aidan
Kershaw, Anthony
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Scott, Nicholas


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kitson, Timothy
Sharpies, Richard


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Dance, James
Lambton, Viscount
Smith, John


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stainton, Keith


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Stodart, Anthony


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Summers, Sir Spencer


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Talbot, John E. Tapsell, Peter


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(SuenC'dfield)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Longden, Gilbert
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Catheart)


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, W. H.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lubbock, Eric
Teeling, Sir William


Eden, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Temple, John M.


Elliot, Capt Walter (Carihalton)
MacArthur, Ian
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Iyne,N.)
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'tv)
Tilney, John


Errington, Sir Eric
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Turton, Rt. Hn, R. H.


Farr, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Fisher, Nigel
McMaster, Stanley
Vickers, Dame Joan


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Foster, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Wall, Patrick


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Marples, Rt.Hn. Ernest
Walters, Dennis


Gilmour, Iain (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)




Glover, Sir Douglas









Weatherill, Bernard
Winstaniey, Dr. M. P.
Wylie, N. R.


Webster, David
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Wells, John (Maidstone)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Mr. George Younger and


Whitelaw, William
Woodnutt, Mark
Mr. Reginald Eyre.


Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Worsley, Marcus

Question put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 270, Noes 212.

Division No. 127.]
AYES
[5.27 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Ellis, John
Lipton, Marcus


Albu, Austen
English, Michael
Lomas, Kenneth


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ennals, David
Loughlin, Charles


Alldritt, Walter
Ensor, David
Luard, Evan


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)


Archer, Peter
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McBride, Neil


Armstrong, Ernest
Fernyhough E.
McCann, John


Ashley, Jack
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacColl, James


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
MacDermot, Niall


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Floud, Bernard
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Barnes, Michael
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackie, John


Barnett, Joel
Ford, Ben
Mackintosh, John P.


Baxter, William
Forrester, John
Maclennan, Robert


Beaney, Alan
Fowler, Gerry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bence, Cyril
Freeson, Reginald
MacPherson, Malcolm


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Binns, John
Gardner, A. J.
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)


Bishop, E. S.
Garrett, W. E.
Mapp, Charles


Blackburn, F.
Garrow, Alex
Marquand, David


Boardman, H.
Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Roy


Booth, Albert
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mayhew, Christopher


Boston, Terence
Gregory, Arnold
Mellish, Robert


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert
Griffiths, David (Bother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian


Boyden, James
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Milian, Bruce


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Bradley, Tom
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hamling, William
Molloy, William


Brooks, Edwin
Hannan, William
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan)
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Brown,Bob(N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hattersley, Roy
Morris, John (Aheravon)


Buchan, Norman
Hazell, Bert
Moyle, Roland


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hefter, Eric S.
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Henig, Stanley
Murray, Albert


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Neal, Harold


Cant, R. B.
Hilton, W. S.
Newens, Stan


Carmichael, Neil
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hooley, Frank
Norwood, Christopher


Chapman, Donald
Horner, John
Oakes, Gordon


Coe, Denis
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Ogden, Eric


Coleman, Donald
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
O'Malley, Brian


Concannon, J. D.
Howie, W.
Orbach, Maurice


Conlan, Bernard
Hoy, James
Orme, Stanley


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Oswald, Thomas


Cronin, John
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hunter, Adam
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Hynd, John
Paget, R. T.


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Park, Trevor


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


de Freitag, Sir Geoffrey
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pentland, Norman


Detargy, Hugh
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Kelley, Richard
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dickens, James
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dobson, Ray
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Price, William (Rugby)


Doig, Peter
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Probert, Arthur


Driberg, Tom
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Purley, Cmdr. Harry


Dunn, James A.
Leadbitter, Ted
Rankin, John


Dunnett, Jack
Lee, John (Reading)
Redhead, Edward


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rees, Merlyn


Eadie, Alex
Lever, Harold (Cheatham)
Reynolds, G. W.


Edelman, Maurice
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Richard, Ivor


Edwards, William (Merioneth)






Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Snow, Julian
Wellbeloved, James


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Steele, Thomas (DunbartonShire, W.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Stonehouse, John
Whitaker, Ben


Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow E.)
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
SuMMerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Whitlock, William


Roebuck. Roy
Swain, Thomas
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Rogers, George
Swingler, Stephen
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Rose, Paul
Symonds, J. B.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Taverne, Dick
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ryan, John
Thornton, Ernest
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Shaw, ArnOld (llford, S.)
Tinn, James
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Sheldon, Robert
Tomney, Frank
Winnick, David


Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Tuck, Raphael
Winterhottom, R. E.


Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Urwin, T. W.
Woof, Robert


Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Varley, Eric C.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Silkin, S, C. (Dulwich)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Yates, Victor


Silverman, Jullus (Aston)
Walden, Brian (Al Saints)
TELLERS FOR TILE AYES:


Skeffington, Arthur
Walker, Haro'd (Doncaster)
Mr. Charles Grey and


Slater, Joseph
Wallace, George
Mr. George Lawson.


Small, William
Watkins, David (Conseil)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Farr, John
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.GeOffrey(SuEnC'dfield)


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert


Astor, John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Loveys, W. H.


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Fortescue, Tim
Lubbock, Eric


Awdry, Daniel
Foster, Sir John
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Baker, W. H. K.
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
MacArthur, Ian


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Ian (Nor101k, C.)
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Batsford, Brian
Glover, Sir Douglas
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Boamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Sir Richard
McMaster, Stanley


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Goodhart, Philip
Maddan, Martin


Berry, His. Anthony
Goodhew, Victor
Maginnis, John E.


Biffen, Jhon
Gower, Raymond
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Black, Sir Cyril
Gresham Cooke, R.
Marten, Neil


Blaker, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Maude, Angus


Body, Richard
Gurden, Harold
Mawby, Ray


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall-Davis, A. C. F.
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. lin. John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Braine, Bernard
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Miscampbell, Norman


Brewis, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Monro, Hector


Brinton, Sir Talton
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
More, Jasper


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)


Bruce-Gacdyne, J.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bryan, Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Mott-Radclyfte, Sir Charles


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hawkins, Paul
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hay, John
Murton, Oscar


Bullus, Sir Eric
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Neave, Airey


Burden, F. A.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Campbell, Gordon
Heseltine, Michael
Note, John


Carlisle, Mark
Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hiley, Joseph
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Channon, H. P. C.
Hill, J. E. B.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Clark, Henry
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Clegg, Walter
Holland, Philip
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Cooke, Robert
Hordern, Peter
Peel, John


Cordle, John
Hornby, Richard
Percival, Ian


Corfield, F. V.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Peyton, John


Costain, A. P.
Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Crawley, Aidan
Iremonger, T. L.
Pounder, Rafton


Crouch, David
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Prior, J. M. L.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Pym, Francis


Dance, James
Jopling, Michael
Quennell, Miss J. M.


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn, Sir


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peter Rees-Davies, W. R.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dighy, Simon Wingfield
Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Ridsdale, Julian


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Kitson, Timothy
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Drayson,G. B.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Lambton, Viscount
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Eden, Sir John
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sanclys, Rt. Hn. D.


Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Scott, Nicholas


Errington, Sir Eric
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sharpies, Richard


Eyre, Reginald

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)







Smith, John
Tilney, John
Whitelaw, William


Stairtton , Keith
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (TrurO)


Stodart, Anthony
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Winstainey, Dr. M. P.


Summers, Sir Spencer
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Talbot, John E.
Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Tapsell, Peter
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Woodnutt, Mark


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wall, Patrick
Woreley, Marcus


Taylor,Edward M. (C'gow, Cathcart)
Walters, Dennis
Wylie, N. R.


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Ward, Dame Irene
Younger, Hn. George


Teeling, Sir William
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Temple, John M.
Webster, David
Mr. David Mitchell and


Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mr. Anthony Grant.

Mr. Speaker: We come now to Amendment No. 51. Mr. Iain Macleod.

Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you happen to have noticed, as the protector of the interests of minority opinions in the House, that in all these debates, owing to the moving of the Closure each time, there has been no spokesman for the North-East. Whereas Scotland, the South and other parts of the country have had an opportunity, the North-East has been eliminated entirely. I wonder how you react to that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Lady is a minority who can protect herself.

5.38 a.m.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in line 33, at end insert:
(4) On any allotted day upon which consideration of the Bill is not entered upon by half-past three o'clock, there shall be added to any times specified in the Order a time equivalent to the time which elapsed between three o'clock and the time at which consideration of the Bill was entered upon.
This is the last attempt by Her Majesty's Opposition to squeeze a little extra time on this Motion, the final Amendment, No. 52, being a technical one. If I understood the Leader of the House rightly, in his opening remarks he was inclined to look sympathetically upon the two Amendments, and I shall put this one briefly before the House.
The only point that I wish to make is that if there is to be a concession on Amendment No. 51, it is not one which the Government want to make. It is one which has been forced out of them, because this concession is the result of the Prime Minister's visit to Moscow. Indeed, it is the only result of his visit to Moscow. He never should have gone; but we are to have a statement from him tomorrow.
What the Amendment means is that time taken up by the House in discussing

the proposals for deflation which the Prime Minister is to put before us tomorrow shall not graciously come out of the time for the Opposition on the Guillotine Motion. It seems to me to be an unthinkable proposal that it should, but I wish to remind the House that it is only because of the change of business, making Wednesday the first allotted day, that this coincidence of the first allotted day and the Prime Minister's statement and hence this concession, if it comes, are brought together.
I remind the House, also, that on the second allotted day, which under the original plan was to have been the first allotted day, on Thursday, the business of the House statement and other matters might take up a considerable amount of time, which the Leader of the House had not thought fit to provide for, because these words are not in his original Motion.
This guillotine Motion remains wholly objectionable and offensive to this side of the House. All the arguments which the Leader of the House and others have tried to put forward have been shot down in flames. There is no precedent since 1952 for putting on a Guillotine before the Committee starts. There is no precedent since 1931 for guillotining a money Bill. There is no precedent since Simon de Montfort for an allocation of time Motion of the savagery of this one.
It would make a small difference, and a happy ending to the night—let us say that—if this Amendment were accepted, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that this should have been in his original Motion, and it is only the accident of the Prime Minister's statement tomorrow that has led to him coming to the Dispatch Box now, if he will, to make this concession.

5.41 a.m.

Mr. Bowden: The right hon. Gentleman knows—and no one knows better


than he does—having introduced more guillotine Motions than anyone in this House, that never before has an Amendment of this sort been incorporated in a guillotine Motion. It has always been the custom and habit, and it is common form, for an additional half hour to be added 10 the day so that the Guillotine falls at 10.30 instead of ten o'clock.
Under the Motion now before the House, the Guillotine will fall at 11.30. The Government are, therefore, being generous to the extent of providing an additional hour, but, to continue that feeling of generosity, we are prepared to accept the amendment, not for the reason that the right hon. Gentleman has just thought of, but because we feel that, particularly because of the business statement on Thursday, we will try to help the Opposition.

Amendment agreed to.

5.43 a.m.

Sir J. Hobson: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, to leave out lines 111 to 115.
Paragraph 12(3) provides that if the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended on any day on which we are considering this Bill, the Government shall, on the next day, without notice, and without informing the House, be able to move a Motion altering the provisions of the Motion and the provisions made for the discussion of the Bill.
I do not need to emphasise at this hour how unparliamentary it is that the Government, having got a Motion of this nature, should, without notice, be able to turn the whole thing upside down. They might think of moving the Adjournment at eleven o'clock the evening before—I do not suggest that they would —or there might not be a quorum, or for some other reason the House might adjourn, or the sitting might be suspended, and there cannot be any reason

why they should not give notice if they propose to alter the Motion.

There might be an occasion when the House adjourns and there is not time for the Government to put down a Motion for the very next day, but it is better that we should insist on the Government giving notice if they are going to change the restrictive nature of this Motion, and this is why we have tabled the Amendment.

5.45 a.m.

Mr. Bowden: The words which the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to delete from the Motion are certainly not common form, although there is a precedent for this sub-paragraph. It was included in a timetable Motion introduced by the present Opposition when they were in Government.
I am prepared to accept the Amendment, but I should point out that probably the only two occasions when the provision would operate would be, first, in the case of a grave disorder—and one does not see that in the House, even these days—and, secondly, in the case of the sort of circumstance when the sitting of the House has to be suspended for the reason which hon. Members have in mind but which no one perhaps wishes to discuss at the moment.
We are quite prepared to accept the Amendment, in the hope that it will not be necessary to introduce a new Motion.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, again proposed.

Sir Keith Joseph: Sir Keith Joseph (Leeds, North-East) rose—

Mr. John Silkin: Mr. John Silkin rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 209.

Division No. 128.]
AYES
[5.46 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Booth, Albert


Albu, Austen
Barnes, Michael
Boston, Terence


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Barnett, Joel
Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert


Alldritt, W alter
Baxter, William
Boyden, James


Anderson, Donald
Beaney, Alan
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Archer, Peter
Bence, Cyril
Bradley, Tom


Armstrong, Ernest
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridget' n)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy


Ashley, Jail,
Binns, John
Brooks, Edwin


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Boardman, H.
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)




Buchan, Norman
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pentland, Norman


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Howie, W.
Perry, Ernest (Battersea, S.)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hoy, James
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Carmichael, Neil
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Chapman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Price, William (Rugby)


Coe, Denis
Hynd, John
Probert, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Concannon, J. D.
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Rankin, John


Conlan, Bernard
Jeger, George (Goole)
Redhead, Edward


Crawshaw, Richard
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Merlyn


Cronin, John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reynolds, G. W.


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Richard, Ivor


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caervarvon)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kelley, Richard
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Kenyon, Clifford
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Kerr, Russell (Feitham)
Roebuck, Roy


Delargy, Hugh
Leadbitter, Ted
Rogers, George


Dell, Edmund
Lee, John (Reading)
Rose, Paul


Dewar, Donald
Leetor, Miss Joan
Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lever, Harold (Cheatham)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dickens, James
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Ryan, John


Dobson, Ray
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Doig, Peter
Lipton, Marcus
Sheldon, Robert


Driberg, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Dunn, James A.
Loughlin, Charles
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton.N.E.)


Dunnett, Jack
Luard, Evan
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCann, John
Skeffington, Arthur


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacColl, James
Slater, Joseph


Ellis, John
MacDermot, Niall
Small, William


English, Michael
McGuire, Michael
Snow, Julian


Ennals, David
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Ensor, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Stonehouse, John


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mackie, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackintosh, John P.
Swain, Thomas


Fernyhough, E.
Maclennan, Robert
Swingler, Stephen


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Symonds, J. B.


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Taverns, Dick


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Floud, Bernard
Mallalieu,J.P.W (H uddersfi eld, E.)
Thornton, Ernest


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mapp, Charles
Tinn, James


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Marquand, David
Tomney, Frank


Ford, Ben
Mason, Roy
Tuck, Raphael


Forrester, John
Mayhew, Christopher
Urwin, T. W.


Fowler, Gerry
Mellish, Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Freeson, Reginald
Milian, Bruce
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Calpern, Sir Myer
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gardner, A. J.
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wallace, George


Garrett, W. E.
Molloy, William
Watkins, David (Consett)


Darrow, Alex
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
W ellbeloved, James


Gourlay, Harry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitaker, Ben


Gregory, Arnold
Morris, John (Aberavon)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, Roland
Whitlock, William


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Murray, Albert
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Newens, Stan
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hamling, William
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hannan, William
Norwood, Christopher
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Harper, Joseph
Oakes, Gordon
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
O'Malley, Brian
Winnick, David


Hattersley, Roy
Orhach, Maurice
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hazell, Bert
Orme, Stanley
Woof, Robert


Helfer, Eric S.
Oswald, Thomas
Wyatt, Woodrow


Henig, Stanley
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Yates, Victor


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
TELLERS-FOR THE AYES:


Hilton, W. S.
Palmer, Arthur
Mr. Charles Grey and


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Park, Trevor
Mr. George Lawson


Hooley, Frank
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)



Horner, John






NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Balniel, Lord


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Awdry, Daniel
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony


Astor, John
Baker, W. H. K.
Batsford, Brian







Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Murton, Oscar


Bennett, sir Frederick (Torquay)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Heave, Airey


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nott, John


Biffen, John
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Onslow, Cranley


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Body, Richard
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hastings, Stephen
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hawkins, Paul
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Braine, Bernard
Hay, John
Peel, John


Brewis, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Percival, Ian


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Heseltine, Michael
Peyton, John


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hiley, Joseph
Pink, R. Bonner


Bryan, Paul
Hill, J. E. B.
Pounder, Rafton


BuchananSmith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Prior, J. M. L.


Bullus, Sir Eric
Holland, Philip
Pym, Francis


Burden, F. A.
Hordern, Peter
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Campbell, Gordon
Hornby, Richard
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Carlisle, Mark
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hunt, John
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Channon, H. P. G.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Chichester-Clark, R.
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, Julian


Clark, Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Cooke, Rebut
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)


Cordle, John
Jopling, Michael
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Corfield, F. V.
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Costain,A. P.
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Scott, Nicholas


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Sharpies, Richard


Crawley, Aidan
Kershaw, Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Crouch, David
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, John


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Kitson, Timothy
Stainton, Keith


Dalkeith, Earl of
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Stodart, Anthony


Dance, James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Tapsell, Peter


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dighy, Simon Wingfield
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Lloyd,Rt. Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Teeling, Sir William


Drayson,G. B.
Longden, Gilbert
Temple, John M.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Loveys, W. H.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Eden, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric
Tilney, John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Elliott, R.W. (N 'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
MacArthur, Ian
van Strauhenzee, W. R.


Errington, Sir Eric
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Eyre, Reginald
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Farr, John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Fisher, Nigel
McMaster, Stanley
Wall, Patrick


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Walters, Dennis


Fortescue, Tim
Maddan, Martin
Ward, Dame Irene


Foster, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Weatherill, Bernard


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Webster, David


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Marten, Neil
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, William


Glover, Sir Douglas
Mawby, Ray
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Glyn, Sir Richard
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Codher, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Goodhart, Philip
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Goodhew, Victor
Miscampbell, Norman
Woodnutt, Mark


Gower, Raymond
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Worsley, Marcus


Grant, Anthony
Monro, Hector
Wylie, N. R.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
Younger, Hn. George


Gresham Cooke, R.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Mr. Jasper More and


Gurtien, Harold
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Mr. Peter Maker.

Main Question,as Amended put accordingly:—

The house divided: Ayes 265, Noes 210

Division No. 129.]
AYES
[5.56 a.m.


Abse, Leo
Ashley, Jack
Baxter, William


Albu, Austen
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Beaney, Alan


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Bence, Cyril


Alldritt, Walter
Bacon, Rt. H. Alice
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)


Anderson, Donald
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Binns, John


Archer, Peter
Barnes, Michael
Bishop, E. S.


Armstrong Ernest
Barnett, Joel
Blackburn, F.




Boardman, H.
Hazell, Bert
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'n1)


Booth, Albert
Hefter, Eric S.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Boston, Terence
Henig, Stanley
Palmer, Arthur


Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbett[...]
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Park, Trevor


Boyden, James
Hilton, W. S.
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, Kttown)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Bradley, Tom
Hooley, Frank
Penland, Norman


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Horner, John
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Howarth, Robert (Belton, R.)
Prentiss, Rt. Hn. R. E.


Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyre,W.)
Howie, W.
Price, Christopher Merry Barr)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hoy, James
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Price, William (Rugby)


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Probert, Arthur


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Purser, Cmdr. Harry


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hunter, Adam
Rankin, John


Cant, R. B.
Hynd, John
Redhead, Edward


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenblh)
Rees, Merlyn


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Reynolds, G. W.


Chapman, Donald
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rhodes, Geoffey


Coe, Denis
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Richard, Ivor


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Cae[...] narvon)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,8.)
Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow E.)


Cronin, John
Kelley, Richard
Rodgers, William (Stockton)


Dalyell, Tam
Kenyon, Clifford
Roebuck, Roy


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rogers, George


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rose, Paul


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rowiand, Christopher (Meriden)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, John (Reading)
Ryan, John


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lester, Miss Joan
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


de Freltas, Sir Geoffrey
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Sheldon, Robert


Delargy, Hugh
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Short, Peter (Stepney)


Dell, Edmund
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Short,Mrs. Renée( W 'hampton,N.E.)


Dewar, Donald
Lipton, Marcus
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Lomas, Kenneth
Silkin, S. C. (Dulwich)


Dickens, James
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Dobson, Ray
Luard, Evan
Skeffington, Arthur


Doig, Peter
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Slater, Joseph


Driberg, Tom
McBride, Neil
Small, William


Dunn, James A.
McCann, John
Snow, Julian


Dunnelt, Jack
MacColl, James
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonehire, W.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'h'e)
MacDermot, Nialt
Storehouse, John


Eadie, Alex
McGuire, Michael
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Swain, Thomas


Edwards, William (Mdrioneth)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Swingier, Stephen


Ellis, John
Mackie, John
Symonds, J. B.


English, Michael
Mackintosh, John P.
Taverne, Dick


Ennals, David
Maclennan, Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thornton, Ernest


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Tinn, James


Fernyhough, E.
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tomney, Frank


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.[...]
Tuck, Raphael


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Malialieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Urwin, T. W.


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mapp, Charles
Varley, Eric G.


Floud, Bernard
Marquand, David
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Mason, Roy
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mayhew, Christopher
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Robert
Wallace, George


Forrester, John
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David (Consett)


Fowler, Gerry
Milan, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Freeson, Reginald
Mitchell, R. C. (Sth'pton, Teat)
Whitaker, Ben


Galpern, Sir Myer
Molloy, William
White, Mrs. Eirene


Gardner, A. J.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Whitlock, William


Garrett, W. E.
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Garrow, Alex
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Gourley, Harry
Morris, John (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Gregory, Arnold
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Griffiths, David (Rather Valley)
Murray, Albert
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, Will (Erchange)
Newels, Stan
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winnick, David


Hamilton, William (Fite, W.)
Norwood, Christopher
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hamling, William
Oakes, Gordon
Woof, Robert


Hannan, William
Ogden, Eric
Wyatt, Woodrow


Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian
Yates, Victor


Harrison Walter (Wakefield)
Orbach, Maurice
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Charles Grey and


Hattersley, Roy
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. George Lawson.







NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gower, Raymond
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Allason, dames (Hemel Hempstead)
Grant, Anthony
Monro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Astor, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Murton, Oscar


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Neave, Airey


Awdry, Daniel
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Baker W. H. K.
Gurden Harold
Nott, John


Balniel, Lord
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Onsl[...]ow, Cranley


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Batsford Brian
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W[...]
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir TuftOn
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Bye)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Biffen, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Peel, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Hastings, Stephen
Percival, Ian


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Peyton, John


Body, Richard
Hay, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bossom, Sir Clive
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Pink, R. Bonner


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heseltine, Michael
Pounder, Rafton


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Higgins, Terence L.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Brains, Bernard
Hiley, Joseph
Prior, J. M. L.


Brswis, John
Hill, J. E. B.
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brown Sir Edward (Bath)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Bryan, Paul
Hordern, Peter
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Hornby, Richard
Rldedale, Julian


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Bullus Sir Eric
Hunt, John
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Burden, F. A.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Campbell, Gordon
Iremonger, T. L.
St. John-Stevan, Norman


Carlisle,Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Scott, Nicholas


Channon, H. P. G.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Crinstead)
Sharpies, Richard


Chichester Clark, R.
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Clark, Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Smith, John


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stainton, Keith


Cooke, Robert
Kerby, Capt.
Stodart, Anthony


Cordle, John
Henry Kershaw, Anthony
Summers, Sir Spencer


Corfield, F. V.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Tapsell, Peter


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Taylor, Edward M.(C'gow,Cathcart)


Crawley, Aidan
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crouch, David
Langford Holt, Sir John
Testing, Sir William


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Temple, John M.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Dance, James
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(SurnC'dfield)
Tilney, John


Dean, Pawl (Somerset, N.)
Longden, Gilbert
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Loveys, W. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Dighy, Simon Wingfield
Lubbock, Eric
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
MacArthur, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Drayson, G. B.
Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Wall, Patrick


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Walters, Denis


Eden, Sir John
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Ward, Dame Irene


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carhalton)
McMaster, Stanley
weatherill, Bernard


Errington, Sir Eric
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Webster, David


Eyre, Reg inald
Madden, Martin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Farr, John
Maginnis, John E.
Whitelaw, William


Fisher, Nigel
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Marten, Neil
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fortescue, Tim
Maude, Angus
Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick


Foster, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan
Maxwell-Hyslop R. J.
Woodnutt, Mark


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Mills Peter (Torrington)
Worsley, Marcus


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wylie, N. R.


Glover, Si,Douglas
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Younger, Hn. George


Glyn, Sir Richard
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
More, Jasper
Mr. Francis Pym and


Goodhart, Philip
Morgan, W. G. (Denbigh)
Mr. R. W. Elliott.


Goodhew, Victor
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

BUILDING (DIRECT LABOUR COSTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

6.6 a.m.

Mr. Richard Sharples: I am very glad to have the opportunity of raising a subject which is of considerable concern to every building and contracting firm in the country. It is the comparison of costs of construction by private contractor and by direct labour. I do not believe that the private contractor expects any special privileges in this matter, but what he does expect is that he should be treated fairly and where comparisons are drawn that they should be drawn fairly.
I put a Question for Written Answer to the Minister of Housing and Local Government on 24th May this year, to which he replied:
Precise measurement of efficiency is always difficult, but statistics on the cost of local authority houses show that cost per square foot is less by direct labour than by contractor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1966: Vol. 729, c. 54]
I draw the attention of the House to two words in that Answer. The first is "statistics". Everyone in the House knows what is meant by statistics. The second word is "cost". Those words were used without qualification of any particular areas or local authorities.
I was somewhat surprised to receive that Answer, because from my experience at the Ministry of Public Building and Works I do not recall any such statistics being maintained in the Ministry nor so far as I know in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government which would justify the Minister in giving a reply of that kind. I was not alone in my surprise at what the Minister said in his Answer. It was taken up to a large extent by the technical Press. I quote one example from the Contract Journal, of 9th June this year, in which "John Sumner's Notebook" said, in reference to the Minister's answer:
As something of a student of the direct labour scene, I would like to know where Mr. Crossman got these statistics to which he refers. If his answer is that he got them from his Department, then there must be somebody at the Ministry of Housing and Local Govern-

ment who is stringing his Minister along—and in a big way.
The writer went on in this journal, which is widely read throughout the whole industry, to suggest that I should put down a Question to find from where these statistics were obtained and added:
This is likely to give Mr. Crossman a bit of a headache. Not because a great deal of time would have to be spent in getting them, but because I happen to know that they do not exist.
There was already at that time when the article was written a further Question on the Order Paper which was answered by the Parliamentary Secretary on 14th June. In answer to a Question asking him to publish the statistics on which these estimates were based, he produced some very detailed figures. He said:
In 1965, the average price per square foot of local authority 2-storey, 3-bedroom houses built by contractors was about 55s. 7d. compared with 54s. 2½. for those built by direct labour.
These figures showed a difference, if my calculations are correct, of only Is. 4½d. in the price per square foot according to the Minister's calculations.
I think that there are certain questions which we should ask about these figures which were produced by the Parliamentary Secretary. The first question that arises is: where do these figures come from? Are these the statistics covering the nation as a whole which we referred to by the Minister of Housing and Local Government, or are these the figures which have been produced from an examination of particular schemes such as that which was carried out by the Manchester City Direct Works Department?
The House should be told whether these figures are national or whether they are related to particular schemes where there are particular circumstances. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will know perfectly well that if these figures, which bear a curious resemblance to those worked out by the Manchester City Direct Works Department, are taken from particular cases of that kind, his answer is wholly misleading. I hope that we shall have a clear answer on that point.
The other point which came out of the Parliamentary Secretary's reply was:
I have no information about the percentage added for overheads either by contractors or direct labour organisations."—


[OFFICIAL RETORT, 14th June, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 260
The question that arises, therefore, is: how was he able to produce a figure down to the nearest ½d. unless he had some information about the question of overheads, unless he had made some allowance and percentage addition for overheads?
In relation to this reply and the 54s. 2½d., the House should be told specifically, first, where these figures were obtained from: secondly, how they were calculated without the Parliamentary Secretary apparently knowing what percentage was added for overheads, because it would be impossible to do the sum without that and, thirdly, why he used the word "price" and not "cost" as was used in the Minister's original reply.
I put down a third Question to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which received an oral Answer on 28th June. I asked the Minister then to publish detailed breakdown of these statistics. I received a reply which, again, was wholly at variance with the reply which had been given both by the Minister himself and subsequently by the Parliamentary Secretary. The Minister replied:
No detailed breakdown of these estimates of costs is available…
We have had "statistics". We have had "price". Now we have "estimates of cost".
…The information is compiled from figures provided by local authorities".
Which local authorities?
Was the Minister's original Answer referring to statistics of cost misleading? If it was misleading, the right hon. Gentleman himself should have come to the House and made a statement correcting the impression which he knew from the articles in the technical Press he had created.
In answer to a supplementary question from me, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
The fact is that these are estimated figures, not actual costs. I think that they provide a good guide. We are getting further information to try to test this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June 1966; Vol. 730, c. 1580.]
Is this the basis of the statistics of cost to which the Minister referred in his original reply?
In the absence of any personal statement by the Minister to correct his original reply, the House must assume that these statistics of cost to which he referred exist in detail in the Ministry. Otherwise, his original reply was wholly misleading. I have searched in the Library of the House and other sources available to me for these statistics, and I have been quite unable to find them. The Parliamentary Secretary should tell us whether these statistics have been published and, if they have, where they have been published. If not, will he say when they are to be published and made available so that people outside the Ministry can make these comparisons?
How was the comparison made to which the Minister referred in his original Answer? Was it an estimate of direct labour cost against contractor's tender price? Was it an estimate of direct labour cost against contractor's final account? Was it the actual direct labour cost against the contractor's final account? The industry is awaiting answers to these important questions.
If it is based on actual cost, how is the actual cost for direct labour calculated? What percentage allowance is made for overheads, for the work done in local authority offices? I know the percentage which is added by the Ministry of Public Building and Works for work done for other Departments. Is it the same percentage which is added in these calculations?
Are these figures for direct labour cost based on serial tendering, or on separate contracts? There is a great difference. A local authority which is able to provide serial tendering for its direct labour costing has a considerable advantage. What allowance is made for the costs of plant and machinery owned by the direct labour departments? Are these written off in the proper way, and is interest allowed in the calculation for plant and machinery owned by the direct labour departments?
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give clear and definite answers to all these questions. There is no doubt that the Government have made the position of the private contractor very much more difficult since they came into office. It is much more difficult for comparisons to be made


between the costs of building by private contractor and the costs of building by direct labour through the abolition of the one in three rule. They have given an advantage to direct labour, particularly in the case of the smaller contractor, through the advantage that the direct labour department has in maintenance as a result of the Selective Employment Tax.
The Minister is, I understand, to meet the house builders on 4th August, the original date having been changed. According to a hand-out issued by the National Federation of Building Trades Employers,
 The conference has been arranged at the request of Mr. Crossman, who has expressed his strong wish to arrest the decline in the number of houses being built and the loss of confidence amongst house-builders.
I am sure that the industry in assessing the confidence that it has in the Minister will pay careful attention to the reply that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gives to the points that I have raised.

6.22 a.m.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate, however briefly, and in the full knowledge that the Opposition, as represented on this occasion by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples), are the traditional opponents of direct labour as they are of every other public enterprise. The inferences that I deduce from the hon. Gentleman's remarks are that direct labour is dishonest, that the application by local authorities of direct labour schemes is to some extent dishonest, that the costs are buried, and that the actual costs of contracts are not revealed by local authorities.
In my very long experience and very close contact with direct labour departments before I became a Member of Parliament I was able to gather some rather intimate knowledge of their working in my immediate area as a trade union officer. I shall quote one or two figures based on my local authority experience after a Ministry of Labour circular early in 1958 insisted that local authority direct labour departments should tender for every third contract in competition with private contractors. My figures, which are authentic, are most

revealing. Time does not permit me to go through them in detail.
However, in December, 1958, 40 houses were tendered for. It should be remembered that this was a relatively small local authority and that it had a small direct labour department. The urban district council tendered £ 52,225, and the next lowest tender was £ 57,583. The completed cost by the direct labour department was £ 48,362, giving a total saving of £ 9,221, an average of £ 230 per house. In February, 1960, 42 houses were tendered for. The urban district council's tender was £ 57,080, and £ 9,642 was saved against the next lowest tender, representing £ 229 per house. In May, 1961, four houses were tendered for. The next lowest tender to that of the local authority was £ 7,422 and the completed cost was £ 5,818, a saving of £ 1,594 or £ 398 per house. In April, 1964, 12 dwellings were tendered for. The council's tender was £ 17,041, the next lowest tender was £ 18,756 and the completed cost was £ 16,835, giving a net saving of £ 1,921 and a saving per house of £ 160.
These figures appear to give the direct lie to the suggestion that local authorities are not competitive with private contractors. I appreciate the concern of contractors when they find themselves unable to compete with these highly efficient direct labour departments.
The gross saving to the local authority direct labour department, building 98 houses was £ 22,388, or £ 228 a house. In addition, there is the higher efficiency and better standard of workmanship. This money would have gone as profit to private contractors with the subsequent additional burden on rent and ratepayers. Another local authority in my area has built houses for sale at a much cheaper selling price than could any contractor in the locality. There are many examples which I could give.
By contrast, in the absence of competition in the new town of Peterlee, a contractor, contracted by the new town corporation, went into liquidation with liabilities close on £ 500,000 which had to be born by the New Town Corporation and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. I wish that more contractors were as efficient as many of the direct labour departments with which I am proud to be acquainted.

6.27 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): It is important to get the use of direct labour in perspective. About 1,300 local authorities, that is the great majority, employ some direct labour for building, but the bulk of these labour forces are employed on maintenance. There are 137,000 men employed on building repairs and maintenance against only 27,500 on new building work. Of this 27,500, only 14,500 are employed on new housing work.
The use of direct labour for repairs and maintenance is so widespread and well established that we are entitled to conclude that this has been found to be the most efficient way of dealing with the local authorities' large and growing maintenance responsibilities. I am not aware of any suggestion that the cost of doing such maintenance by direct labour is in any way unreasonable or that the work could be done more cheaply and more efficiently by private contractors.
The argument about costs arises generally in connection with new building, and more specifically new house building, undertaken by direct labour. During the first quarter of 1965 187 authorities, most of them large ones, did some or all of their house building by direct labour and direct labour accounted for some 9 per cent. of all local authority house building. Direct labour, therefore, plays a small part in the local authority programme. The question is whether the local authorities who use this method of building get as good a bargain as when they employ contractors. The short answer to this question is, "yes".
Any comparison of the costs of building by direct labour and by contractors must rely on figures provided by local authorities at the time when they seek loan sanction or subsidy from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. At that point the figure of cost is based on the tender price, if the authority proposes to use a contractor or, if direct labour is to be used, on the direct labour department's estimate, which may or may not have been in competition with outside contractors. The point is that in either case the figure is not the final cost.
But directly comparable figures are available only on this basis and it was

this basis that I used in my Answer to the hon. Member's Question on 14th June. I said that in 1965 the average price per square foot of local authority two-storey three-bedroom houses built by contractors was about 55s. 7d. compared with 54s. 2½d. for those built by direct labour.
It has been argued that, to get a true comparison of costs. we should compare final costs rather than tenders and estimates. It has been suggested that a comparison at the tenders-estimate stage is unduly favourable to direct labour and that the final cost of direct labour is generally much higher than the estimate, whereas the contractor can be held to his tender figure.
I cannot accept this. It is true that, in some cases, the final cost of a direct labour scheme exceeds the estimate; and those who dislike direct labour are quick to quote such examples. But there are other cases where the final cost is below the estimate as, for example, has happened in Sheffield—and we do not hear so much about this type of case.
On the other hand, when a contractor undertakes a project it is extremely rare for the final cost to be below the tender and very frequent for it to be above it. By no means all contractors' tenders are firm price. In the first quarter of this year, over 15 per cent, of dwellings in tenders approved were to be built under contracts with fluctuation clauses either for labour or for labour and materials, mainly because they were large schemes with a contract period of more than two years.
Moreover, it is well known—and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) will remember this from his experience as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works—that, as a result of variation orders and claims, the final cost of a job is often not settled until many years after the tender and proves to be quite considerably in excess of it.
The figures that I quoted in my Answer to the hon. Member on 14th June included overheads. There is an important point here. It is often alleged that, while contractors have to include overheads in their tender as well as profit, the direct labour departments of local authorities are able to conceal many


of their overheads in the general accounts of the authority. This is the sort of allegation which is very difficult to prove or disprove and I cannot at the moment do either.
However, I can say that it is, in general, improbable. If the full overheads of the direct labour department are not borne by that department, they have to be borne by some other department. In the nature of things we can expect other departments to resist this and the treasurer of the local authority to make as sure as he can that overheads are borne where they fall. The direct labour department may have an incentive to pass on its overheads to some other department, but the rest of the local authority organisation has every incentive to see that this does not happen.
It is, of course, not always easy to audit direct labour departments and we are concerned to make such audits the instruments for ensuring that overhead costs are properly apportioned. Accordingly, the District Auditors' Society, in collaboration with the Ministry's Chief Inspector of Audit, is now embarking on an internal review of the audit problems of works departments, and I hope that this will throw up any weaknesses in the present arrangements and suggest methods of overcoming them.
The contractor's books are not subject to district audit in this way. His tender may include all the overheads applicable to the project or it may not. Contractors sometimes tender at a loss merely to get a particular contract. Conversely, they may seek to recoup themselves for loss on other contracts by including in their tender—and it may be the lowest—more than those overheads which this particular job will give rise to. So, in any particular period, the estimates submitted by contracts and direct labour departments may vary in relation to each other.
But whatever the difficulties of making a comparison, we must accept that direct labour for new building is justified only if it is efficient and, in the last analysis, competitive. I believe that it is both these things. There has been a lot of misunderstanding about this. People talk as if private contractors obtain local

authority contracts only by competitive tender. This is not so. Between 40 and 50 per cent. of local authority houses now under construction by private builders are the subject of negotiated contracts.
Such comparatively unorthodox contractual procedures have frequently to be used for industrialised building. This flexibility in contractual method was recommended by the Banwell Committee, which reported in 1964. The hon. Member will recall that his right hon. Friend who was then Minister of Public Building and Works told the House, in answer to a Question, that his Government were in general agreement with the main lines of the Committee's Report.
One of the ways in which to make building efficient and cheap is to have continuity of employment for any building organisation, whether it is run by a contractor or a local authority. It helps to get such continuity if one is prepared to depart from fixed price competitive tendering on every occasion. This is the thought behind Circular No. 50/65 of 16th November, 1965, which relieved local authorities with direct labour organisations of the obligation to go out to competitive tender in one case in three The circular gave direct labour departments freedom corresponding to the freedom of private contractors to enter into negotiated contracts.

Mr. R. Chichester-Clark: rose—

Mr. Mellish: I cannot give way. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said my reply would be read by private builders.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Mr. Chichester-Clark rose—

Mr. Mellish: If the hon. Gentleman will keep quiet I will answer the question, although he may not like it because he does not like anything nice to be said about direct labour.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Monday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-four minutes to Seven o'clock a.m.